whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

SpeakUp

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 SpeakUp B.V. · www.speakup.com

Compare with NAVEX One EthicsPoint → 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 SME Operator

Weighted verdict

Runs a 60-employee company that the law obligated, not convinced. Optimizes for compliance set up in an afternoon at a price the year-end review will not question, with the legal duties handled by the product. Rejects per-report fees, setup charges and anything that needs a compliance department to operate.

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

Scored by The SME Operator

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 SME Operator

Phone, voicemail, web and app intake with 100+ languages, professional translation and an anonymous two-way follow-up is more channel than my staff will ever need, and the statement that no IP addresses, fingerprints or identifying metadata are collected makes anonymity look engineered rather than decorative. I found no public information on accessibility standards for the intake or on how anonymity holds on the phone channel, which keeps it below the top band. 7 13

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 SME Operator

Structured triage, custom roles, an audit-ready trail from report to closure, remediation tasks with owners and deadlines, and dashboards that export for regulators — the paperwork side is genuinely handled by the product. But statutory deadlines appear only as a generic reference to "acknowledgment timelines, follow-up requirements", and I found no public information on automated seven-day and three-month clocks or on excluding implicated case handlers, so deadline discipline would rest on my discipline. 7 8 13

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 SME Operator

The EU Whistleblower Directive, German Supply Chain Act, GDPR, NIS2 and DORA are all named, with dedicated directive pages in English and German and claims that retention and localization duties are met. The mapping stays at the regulation-name level though: I found no public information on per-country rule sets, legal templates, or guidance maintained by named counsel, which is the homework I wanted shown in public. 7 11 12 13

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 SME Operator

ISO 27001 and 27701 for the organisation plus quarterly ISAE 3000 Type II, SOC2 and TISAX audits of the platform is the strongest third-party cadence I have seen, and the explicit no-IP, no-fingerprint, no-metadata statement covers the anonymity promise. It falls short of the top band because I found no public information on documented end-to-end encryption architecture, published penetration test summaries, or a security contact and disclosure policy. 7 13

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 SME Operator

Multi-country entities are explicitly supported, custom roles and per-team workflows let case handlers be separated, and dashboards roll up across locations for the global customers they name. I found no public information on per-entity branding, delegated administration or external ombudsman access, so the group structure is asserted rather than documented — as a single-entity firm I only care about that at renewal time. 4 7 13

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 SME Operator

The contracting entity is Dutch with a stated GDPR commitment and an EEA-only transfer statement, and the pages claim data localization requirements are met. But that transfer statement covers only the marketing website, and I found no public information on where the whistleblowing system's reports are hosted, on a public DPA, or on any subprocessor list — for the most sensitive data a company holds, that is thin. 3 5 13

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 SME Operator

The pricing page carries no numbers at all — "Our pricing is customized based on your company size and the features you need" — and it describes the platform as serving companies from 500 employees to global enterprises, while a solutions page also says small and medium businesses are supported; either way a 60-employee buyer cannot compute any invoice without a sales call. The only comfort is public — case management is always included and support packages carry "no additional costs, no hidden fees" — but that is a promise, not a price. 4

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 EU only ⚠ unverified 2/2 pts 5 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 SpeakUp? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (13)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 23 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 About page www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Company / legal information www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Pricing page www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Imprint www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.speakup.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →