whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

Reveal

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Whistleblower Security Inc. · www.whistleblowersecurity.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Assumes "audit-proof" and "100% anonymous" are marketing until the evidence says otherwise. Hunts certification claims without certificates, anonymity claims next to analytics scripts, per-report pricing traps and legal-update promises with no named lawyer. Exists to keep the rest of the bench honest.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Reporting channels & reporter experience

How this is scored

The intake side: how a reporter actually submits — web form, anonymous dialog, phone/voice, languages, accessibility — and whether anonymity survives first contact.

0 — A web form that is an email in disguise: no anonymous route, no way to reach the reporter afterwards.

3 — An anonymous form exists but the dialogue ends there — no secured mailbox for follow-up questions, few languages, desktop-only.

5 — Anonymous two-way dialog via a protected mailbox, a usable set of languages, mobile-friendly; voice or phone intake missing or an add-on.

8 — Multiple channels (web, voice message or hotline, QR entry points), broad language coverage with translation support, accessibility considered, and the anonymous dialog is first-class rather than bolted on.

10 — Intake engineered around the frightened reporter: every channel anonymous-capable, dozens of languages, WCAG-conscious, no app install or account required, and the vendor documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Live-answer hotlines 24/7/365 in English, French and Spanish with interpretation into 150 further languages, plus a web intake with three documented anonymity levels and anonymous two-way messaging, is genuinely engineered intake — and the vendor documents how contact details stay out of the organization's view. The weak point is the strictly anonymous reporter, who must log in manually every 24–48 hours and, on losing a password, loses the dialogue and must file a new case. We found no public information on accessibility standards, QR entry, or a reporter-facing mobile experience. 1 3 4 6

Report an error

Case management & deadline discipline

How this is scored

The case worker's side: triage, statutory deadlines (7-day acknowledgment, 3-month feedback), role separation, audit-proof documentation.

0 — Reports land in an inbox; deadlines, roles and history live in a spreadsheet next door.

3 — A case list with status fields, but deadlines are manual, permissions are all-or-nothing, and the record of who did what is thin.

5 — Deadline tracking with reminders for the statutory clocks, case notes and attachments, basic role separation between case handlers; reporting on the caseload is limited.

8 — Automated statutory clocks, conflict-of-interest handling (excluding implicated case handlers), complete tamper-evident case history, retention and deletion rules applied per case, and management reporting.

10 — A case system an external investigator can rely on: enforced workflows, full audit trail, legally aware retention/deletion automation, evidence handling, and statistics that survive a regulator's questions.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The documented feature list includes configurable user permissions, a restricted-manager role, investigator assignment, task management and an audit log, backed by case analytics and one-click investigation reports — real structure, not a shared inbox. I found no public information on statutory deadline clocks and reminders, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or per-case retention and deletion rules; for a European case worker those duties are the test. 5 6

Report an error

Legal compliance alignment

How this is scored

How specifically the product implements EU Directive 2019/1937 and national transpositions (HinSchG et al.) — not whether the marketing mentions them.

0 — Generic feedback software wearing a whistleblowing label; no reference to the legal obligations it claims to satisfy.

3 — The directive is invoked in marketing but the mapping is vague; deadline rules, documentation duties and retention periods are the customer's problem.

5 — The statutory duties are implemented as product features — acknowledgment and feedback clocks, documentation, deletion after the retention period — for at least one national law, with guidance for the rest.

8 — Multiple national transpositions supported with their differing details, legal templates and process guidance maintained by named counsel or documented review, and updates when the law moves.

10 — The product is a legal instrument: per-country rule sets kept current, documented legal review, guidance for edge cases (group-wide channels, external ombudsman setups), and the vendor shows its homework in public.

Report an error

The Skeptic

We found no public information on EU Directive 2019/1937 or any national transposition — the closest the captured pages come is a generic dashboard that helps you "stay compliant with regulations". No named statute, no legal templates, no named counsel, no update commitment: "Compliance Case Management System" is a label until the vendor shows its legal homework. 5 7

Report an error

Security & anonymity assurance

How this is scored

Whether the confidentiality promise is engineered and evidenced: encryption, metadata handling, penetration tests, certifications.

0 — Security is a paragraph of adjectives; no certificates, no test reports, no statement on metadata.

3 — TLS and encryption at rest asserted, but nothing audited: no ISO 27001 or equivalent, no published pentest, silence on IP and metadata logging.

5 — A current ISO 27001 (or equivalent) certificate for vendor or hosting, end-to-end encryption of report content claimed with some technical detail, an explicit no-IP-logging statement.

8 — Certified ISMS covering the product, regular third-party penetration tests attested, documented end-to-end encryption architecture, metadata minimization explained, security contact and disclosure policy published.

10 — Assurance a hostile auditor accepts: current certificates with visible scope, recurring pentest summaries public, cryptographic architecture documented, anonymity analysed against the operator itself — the vendor can answer "how would you unmask a reporter?" with "we cannot, and here is why".

Report an error

The Skeptic

"WhistleBlower Security is ISO 27001 certified" is one sentence on the certifications page, and we found no public information on the certificate's scope, issue date or the document itself; the encryption detail is real — TLS in transit and AES-256 transparent data encryption on Azure SQL at rest. That is transport-and-storage protection rather than end-to-end encryption of report content, and we found no public information on penetration tests, IP or metadata logging, or a security contact and disclosure policy. 5 7

Report an error

Group & multi-entity capability

How this is scored

Whether one contract can serve a corporate group: separate channels per legal entity, central oversight, ombudsman access, white-labeling.

0 — One company, one channel; a group buys and administers N separate instances.

3 — Multiple channels under one account, but no separation of case access per entity and no consolidated view.

5 — Per-entity channels with separated case handlers and a group-level overview; branding per entity is basic; external counsel access possible.

8 — Real multi-tenant group structure: per-entity channels, languages and branding, delegated administration, external ombudsman roles, group reporting that respects entity boundaries.

10 — Group compliance as architecture: hundreds of entities manageable centrally, per-country legal rule assignment per entity, white-label reporting pages, and access separation strong enough to satisfy each subsidiary's works council.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Subsidiaries are handled natively: the pre-launch setup guide configures portal dropdowns and report routing so reporters select the legal entity concerned, with custom hotline numbers and localized scripts per brand. We found no public information on entity-scoped separation of case access, delegated administration per subsidiary, a consolidated group view that respects entity boundaries, or an external ombudsman role. 4 6 8

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where reports about people actually live and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. In this category the data is by definition the most sensitive a company holds.

0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for whistleblowing data.

3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.

5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.

8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.

10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors for report content and metadata, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Every captured statement about where reports live points to Canada: a primary Canadian Azure data centre geo-replicated to a secondary one, agents "located right here in Canada", and a vendor under Case IQ ownership. For the most sensitive data a European company holds, that is non-EU hosting by default, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, or any EU hosting option. 4 7

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether an obligated company can compute the real invoice — per entity, per employee band, per year — from public pages alone.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — An entry price exists, but the tiers most obligated companies need are unpriced, or the maths is obscured by employee bands, per-report fees or mandatory setup charges.

5 — Most tiers carry real numbers with billing period and VAT treatment stated, but at least one commonly needed capability — extra entities, extra languages, phone intake — hides in an unpriced add-on.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with employee-band boundaries, entity rules and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.

10 — Complete price computability: every tier, band, add-on and renewal rule public, so the invoice for a 60-employee company and a 5-entity group is a two-minute exercise.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The only pricing statement captured is an "all-inclusive service... at a price you can afford" — an adjective where a number should be. We found no public information on tiers, employee bands, billing period, VAT treatment, setup fees or renewal terms, so no obligated company can compute a real invoice from these pages. 4

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Reveal? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (8)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap help.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap help.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →