whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

Smart Integrity Platform

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by DISS-CO GmbH · diss-co.tech

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 Compliance Officer

Weighted verdict

Runs the internal reporting office of a 600-employee company and answers for every missed statutory clock. Optimizes for case discipline: automated acknowledgment and feedback deadlines, role separation, documentation that survives a regulator. Rejects inbox-with-a-form products that make the deadlines her problem.

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

Scored by The Compliance Officer

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 Compliance Officer

The evidence evidences no reporter-facing channel at all — no anonymous form, no protected dialog mailbox, no hotline, no language or accessibility statement; the only adjacent facts are platform-level Whisper voice transcription and DeepL/Systran translation integrations, which serve handlers, not the frightened reporter. By my rule that an unevidenced capability doesn't exist, I cannot put a reporter into this system on this evidence. 2 1

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 Compliance Officer

"Tamper-proof audit trails" is the one disciplined feature, but there is no evidence of the 7-day acknowledgment or 3-month feedback clocks, role separation, conflict-of-interest exclusion, or per-case retention — and the vendor's own stated practice is to retain comments and metadata "indefinitely", which a regulator would not forgive. The "AI agents handle repetitive compliance tasks end-to-end, without manual intervention" pitch is the opposite of the enforced, accountable workflow I need. 2 3 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 Compliance Officer

Neither EU Directive 2019/1937 nor HinSchG appears anywhere in the evidence — the closest is "LkSG" inside a 60+-framework marketing list, with no implementation detail behind any of it. No acknowledgment clock, no feedback deadline, no documentation or retention duty is shown as a product feature; this is framework name-dropping, not legal implementation. 1 2

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 Compliance Officer

SSL is asserted and the on-premise LLM claim that "data never leaves your environment" is a real architectural signal, but no certificate, pentest, or encryption architecture appears in the evidence. Worse, the vendor's own privacy policy documents IP addresses embedded in reset emails and Google Analytics transmitting data to US servers — I could not tell an auditor this vendor knows how to keep a reporter's metadata clean. 6 2 5

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 Compliance Officer

Nothing on per-entity channels, separated case access, delegated administration, ombudsman roles, or group-level oversight — a the evidence this dense in feature marketing would surely mention group architecture if it existed. Azure AD/LDAP SSO is generic enterprise deployment, and the KYB "entity resolution" module is about screening counterparties, not administering my subsidiaries' channels. 1 2

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 Compliance Officer

The German entity rests solely on a privacy-policy controller line with no register entry, data residency is unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages, and ownership is unknown — while their documented subprocessor set includes Google (US) and Microsoft (Redmond). The "your data stays on your servers" on-premise claim would be sovereignty-strong if verified, but it stands alone against an unconfirmed residency posture. 6 5 2

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 Compliance Officer

Not a single price, tier, band, or setup fee appears anywhere in the evidence — only "10 modules and add-ons" with no numbers attached, so every invoice starts as a sales conversation. For a 600-employee obligated company, the real cost is simply not computable from these pages. 1 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 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 ⚠ unverified — 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 Smart Integrity Platform? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (7)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage diss-co.tech Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Whistleblowing product page diss-co.tech Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Product site smartintegrityplatform.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 About page smartintegrityplatform.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Imprint diss-co.tech Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Privacy policy diss-co.tech Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Security / trust page smartintegrityplatform.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →