Whistleblowing Portals
Vispato
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Vispato GmbH · www.vispato.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Vispato at a glance
- Vendor
- Vispato GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Vispato 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Vispato is a German whistleblowing system from Vispato GmbH of Düsseldorf, acquired in April 2025 by HRworks GmbH of Freiburg, with support handled by HR WORKS. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Vispato is a German whistleblowing system from Vispato GmbH of Düsseldorf, acquired in April 2025 by HRworks GmbH of Freiburg, with support handled by HR WORKS. Its strongest area is case management, scoring 4-5: cases run end to end with communication, documentation and deadline tracking on one platform, backed by role-based permissions, need-to-know access, logged inputs and logins, and trend reporting. Its weakest is compliance alignment, 2 with no spread: the captured pages name no statute — neither the EU Whistleblower Directive nor a German transposition — leaving the legal mapping to the buyer. Judges genuinely split elsewhere. Sovereignty spans 2-4, split between crediting the acquirer's statement that all data is safe in the European Union and weighing that the vendor's own captured pages leave residency unconfirmed, with no public information on a data processing agreement or subprocessor list. Reporting channels, security assurance and multi-entity scale each spread 3-4, splitting over how far an anonymity promise, asserted encryption and portals-plus-permissions carry without documented mechanisms, certificates or group structure. We found no public information on pricing.
Speaks for it
- Cases are handled end to end with communication, documentation and deadline tracking on one platform
- Role-based permissions, need-to-know access and logged inputs and logins are stated on the captured pages
- End-to-end encryption, encryption on all servers, two-factor authentication, regular backups and regular security tests are asserted
- One or more submission portals are provided, with standard or custom categories and the customer's choice of how many contact persons, under a promise of highest anonymity for reporters
- Reports, settings and user accounts are stated to remain fully preserved, with the system continuing without interruption through the acquisition
Held against it
- The captured pages name no statute — neither the EU Whistleblower Directive nor a German transposition — leaving the mapping from feature to legal duty to the buyer (compliance alignment scored 2 with no spread)
- We found no public information on automated statutory clocks, exclusion of implicated case handlers, tamper-evident case history, or per-case retention and deletion rules
- We found no public information on ISO 27001 or equivalent certification, third-party penetration-test attestations, or how IP addresses and metadata are handled
- We found no public information on per-entity case separation, a consolidated group view, or external ombudsman and counsel access
- The EU data statement sits on the acquiring company's security page rather than the vendor's own, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement or subprocessor list
Best for
- You are a single-entity, German-speaking organization that wants cases handled end to end — communication, documentation and deadline tracking on one platform — and can supply the statutory mapping through your own counsel
- You want to collect reports from all or selected stakeholders through one or more submission portals, with your own categories and your own choice of contact persons
- You place weight on the acquiring company's statement that all data is safe in the European Union and will ask the vendor for a data processing agreement and subprocessor list before signing
Avoid if
- You need statutory acknowledgment and feedback clocks wired to the EU Whistleblower Directive or a German transposition — compliance alignment scored 2 with no spread and the deadline feature is described generically
- Your group spans several legal entities and needs per-entity case separation and a consolidated group view — multi-entity scale spread 3-4 and we found no public information on either capability
- Your reporters must be reachable for follow-up questions through a protected anonymous channel — reporting channels spread 3-4 and we found no public information on a two-way anonymous mailbox, phone intake or language coverage
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Reporting channels & reporter experience | 1.5 of 5 |
| Case management & deadline discipline | 2.5 of 5 |
| Legal compliance alignment | 1 of 5 |
| Security & anonymity assurance | 2 of 5 |
| Group & multi-entity capability | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
Reporting channels & reporter experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Compliance Officer
A reporter gets a portal link and a promise of the highest anonymity, which clears first base; we found no public information on a protected mailbox for follow-up questions, language coverage, phone or voice intake, or accessibility, so the anonymous dialog after first contact is unevidenced. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
The homepage promises reporters "höchste Anonymität" through shareable submission portals, and a communication function sits on the case-handler side — but we found no public information showing the reporter can be reached again through a protected anonymous mailbox. We also found no public information on phone or voice intake, QR entry, language coverage, accessibility, or how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself. 1
The SME Operator
An anonymous submission portal with a shareable link is offered and anonymity is promised in headline terms, which is the bare minimum. Beyond that I found no public information on a two-way follow-up dialog with the reporter, language coverage, phone or voice intake, or mobile accessibility, so I cannot see what the frightened employee experiences after hitting submit. 1
The Group Counsel
Anonymous web intake is the core promise — highest anonymity through one or more shareable portals — and that much is real on the captured pages. We found no public information on a secured two-way mailbox for follow-up questions, language coverage, phone or voice intake, or accessibility, which is precisely what a twelve-country rollout needs to judge. 1
The Security Auditor
Reports enter through one or more web portals whose address is shared with employees, and anonymity is promised as 'höchste Anonymität' with no documented mechanism for keeping the reporter's identity out of the channel. Communication exists on the case-handler side, but we found no public information on an anonymous two-way mailbox for follow-up questions, language coverage, voice intake, or accessibility. 1
The Skeptic
Submission portals with "höchste Anonymität" for whistleblowers and communication named as a case feature suggest a dialog rather than a dead-end form. But the anonymity promise comes with no account of how the reporter's identity stays out of the channel, and we found no public information on secured follow-up mailboxes, language coverage, voice or phone intake, or mobile accessibility. 1
Case management & deadline discipline
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Compliance Officer
Case handling end to end with communication, documentation and deadline compliance on one platform is the right skeleton, backed by role-based permissions and logged entries and logins; however the deadline copy never says the statutory clocks are automated, and we found no public information on excluding implicated case handlers, tamper-evident case history, or per-case retention and deletion rules. 1 2
The Reporter's Advocate
Case handling is real: communication, documentation and deadline tracking "auf einer Plattform", backed by role-based permissions, logged inputs and logins, and trend reporting. We found no public information on the statutory seven-day acknowledgment and three-month feedback clocks specifically, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, tamper-evident case history, or retention and deletion rules applied per case. 1 2
The SME Operator
Case processing with communication, documentation and deadline compliance on one platform, plus role-based permissions, logged entries and trend reporting, covers the working day of a case handler at my company's size. I found no public information on automated statutory clocks, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or per-case retention and deletion rules, so the audit-proof side rests on trust. 1 2
The Group Counsel
Case work through to completion with communication, documentation and deadline compliance is stated, backed by logged inputs and logins, role-based permissions, need-to-know access and trend reporting. For group discipline I found no public information on automated statutory reminders, exclusion of implicated case handlers, or tamper-evidence of the case history. 1 2
The Security Auditor
Deadline tracking, documentation and communication on one platform, backed by role-based permissions, need-to-know access and logged inputs and logins, plus trend reporting over received reports. We found no public information on automated statutory clocks, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, per-case retention and deletion rules, or tamper-evidence of the case history. 1 2
The Skeptic
Deadline compliance, documentation and communication on one platform, role-based permissions with need-to-know access, logged inputs and logins, and trend reporting add up to a working case system with basic role separation. We found no public information on automated statutory clocks, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, tamper-evident history, or per-case retention and deletion rules. 1 2
Legal compliance alignment
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information naming the EU whistleblower directive or the German transposition, so the legal mapping I would have to defend to a regulator is the single word about deadlines in the case-handling copy. That is a genuine whistleblowing product nodding at the law, not one that shows its legal homework. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
The product is framed in German whistleblowing terms with deadline tracking as a feature, which gestures at the statutory workflow, but nothing implements it as law. We found no public information naming EU Directive 2019/1937 or the HinSchG, no legal templates, no counsel review, and no per-country rules — the customer must verify the legal mapping themselves. 1 2
The SME Operator
This is a dedicated whistleblowing system rather than generic feedback software, but I found no public information referencing the EU whistleblowing directive or the German HinSchG, no legal templates, no named counsel and no per-country rule sets. Deadline compliance appears only as a generic feature, which means the legal mapping would be my job — exactly the job I pay a product to take over. 1
The Group Counsel
The captured pages name no statute — neither the EU whistleblowing directive nor the German HinSchG — so the deadline feature cannot be tied to the acknowledgment and feedback clocks. We found no public information on legal templates, documented legal review, or per-country rule maintenance, which is non-negotiable for a group spanning a dozen legal regimes. 1 2
The Security Auditor
The captured pages make no reference to the EU Whistleblower Directive or any national transposition, and we found no public information on deadline values, documentation duties, retention periods or legal review. The deadline-tracking feature gestures at the statutory machinery, but the mapping from product feature to legal duty is left entirely to the buyer. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition — no statutory clocks, retention periods, legal templates or named counsel on the captured pages, only the German "Hinweisgebersystem" framing and generic deadline tracking. The buyer is left to work out the law themselves. 1 2
Security & anonymity assurance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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".
The Compliance Officer
End-to-end encryption, encryption on all servers, activity logs, need-to-know access, two-factor authentication and regular security tests are all asserted, which is more than a paragraph of adjectives; but we found no public information on an ISO 27001 or equivalent certificate, published penetration test results, IP or metadata logging practice, or a security contact with a disclosure policy. 1 2
The Reporter's Advocate
End-to-end encryption of report content, two-factor authentication and "regelmäßige Sicherheitstests" are claimed, which is more than a paragraph of adjectives. But we found no public information on an ISO 27001 or equivalent certificate, third-party penetration test reports, the encryption architecture, or any statement on IP and metadata logging — the very metadata that could unmask a reporter. 1 2
The SME Operator
End-to-end encryption, two-factor authentication, regular backups, need-to-know access and regular security tests are asserted, which is more than a paragraph of adjectives. But I found no public information on ISO 27001 or equivalent certification, third-party penetration test attestations, or how IP addresses and metadata are handled — for the most sensitive data a company holds, that assurance gap lands on my desk. 1 2
The Group Counsel
End-to-end encryption, encryption on all servers, two-factor authentication, backups and regular security tests are asserted, though the security detail sits on the acquirer's trust page rather than product documentation. We found no public information on ISO 27001 or equivalent certification, third-party penetration-test reports, or metadata and IP logging — for reports about named individuals, that silence decides it. 1 2
The Security Auditor
End-to-end encryption, encryption on all servers, two-factor authentication and 'regular security tests' are asserted as adjectives; we found no public information on certificates, third-party penetration test attestations, a security contact or disclosure policy, or IP and metadata logging. For a product whose premise is anonymity, the vendor publishes nothing on how — or whether — a reporter could be unmasked. 1 2
The Skeptic
End-to-end encryption, encryption on all servers, two-factor authentication and "regelmäßige Sicherheitstests" are asserted, backed by activity logs and need-to-know access. But we found no public information on an ISO 27001 or equivalent certificate, third-party penetration test attestations, metadata or IP-logging practice, or a security contact — the test claim names no tester, scope or report, and the security page itself belongs to the acquirer. 1 2
Group & multi-entity capability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Compliance Officer
One or more portals with freely chosen contact persons and categories supports splitting channels, but we found no public information on separated case access per legal entity, a consolidated group view, delegated administration, or external ombudsman roles. Role-based permissions alone are not a group structure. 1 2
The Reporter's Advocate
"Ein oder mehrere Portale" are confirmed, with role-based and need-to-know access that could keep handlers separated per portal. We found no public information on group-level consolidated oversight, external ombudsman or counsel access, per-entity branding, or delegated administration, so a group buyer is buying on faith. 1 2
The SME Operator
One or more portals with self-chosen contact persons, custom categories and role-based permissions are documented, which reads as multiple channels under one roof. I found no public information on separated case access per legal entity, a consolidated group-level view, or external ombudsman and counsel access — workable for my single company, but a group buyer cannot rely on what is shown. 1 2
The Group Counsel
One or more portals plus a role and permission system is the right skeleton for per-entity intake, and data preserved through the acquisition suggests continuity. We found no public information on separated case access per entity, delegated administration, external ombudsman roles, or a group overview that respects entity boundaries, so I cannot certify this architecture for twenty-five subsidiaries from public evidence. 1 2
The Security Auditor
One or more portals per contract, a role-and-permission system and need-to-know access give the raw material for channel separation, with trend reporting over incoming reports. We found no public information on per-entity case separation, a consolidated group view, delegated administration or external ombudsman access. 1 2
The Skeptic
One or more portals per customer, a role-and-permission system with need-to-know access, and trend reporting over received hints give a plausible multi-channel setup. We found no public information on per-entity case separation, a group-level consolidated view, per-entity branding, or ombudsman and external counsel access. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Compliance Officer
All data is stated to sit safely in the European Union, which is the right default for this category of data; we found no public information on a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, or named data centers, so the chain behind that sentence stays dark. 2
The Reporter's Advocate
The acquirer's security page states all data lives safely in the European Union, and the vendor is recorded as a Düsseldorf company bought by a Freiburg one. But we found no public data processing agreement, no subprocessor list, and no named data centers — and the vendor's own captured pages leave even data residency unconfirmed. 2 1
The SME Operator
EU data location is stated plainly — all data securely in the European Union — though the statement sits on the acquirer's security page rather than the vendor's own. I found no public information confirming the legal entity and ownership on the vendor's pages, no published data processing agreement and no subprocessor list, so the chain the reports travel through is not visible end to end. 2 1
The Group Counsel
All data securely in the European Union is stated on the acquiring company's security page, which supports EU residency for the reports. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, named data centers, or the hosting entity's jurisdiction — and for whistleblowing data my bar is documentation, not assertion. 2
The Security Auditor
The company sits in Germany (Düsseldorf, acquired by Freiburg-based HRworks) and the captured security page states all data is safe in the EU — though that statement lives on the acquirer's trust page. We found no public information on a DPA, a subprocessor list, or named data centers, which for the most sensitive data a company holds is a gap I weigh heavily. 1 2
The Skeptic
The acquirer's trust page states all data sits in the EU, and the vendor is a German GmbH bought by a German company, which keeps this off the floor. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, named data centers or TOMs, and the vendor's own captured pages are silent on residency — for whistleblowing data that documentation gap decides the score. 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on prices, tiers, employee bands, entity rules or setup fees in the captured material; for an obligated 600-employee company the invoice is not computable from anything public, and every tier is a sales conversation. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
We found no public information on prices anywhere in the captured pages — no tiers, no employee bands, no setup fees, no renewal rules. An obligated company cannot compute any part of the invoice without a sales conversation. 1
The SME Operator
I found no public information on prices — no tier names, employee bands, billing period, VAT treatment or renewal rules appear in the captured pages, only a support handover notice. For an obligated company that wants to defend the invoice at year-end and avoid per-report surprises, an entirely unpriced product is a non-starter no matter how tidy the software looks. 1
The Group Counsel
We found no public information on any price, tier, employee band, setup fee or renewal rule in the captured material. Nothing on these pages lets an obligated company — let alone a five-entity group — begin to compute an invoice without a sales conversation. 1
The Security Auditor
The captured vendor pages show no prices, tiers, employee bands or billing terms; we found no public information that would let an obligated company estimate an invoice before a sales conversation. Every tier is unpriced in public view. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Vispato
Is Vispato European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Vispato as EU-Made.
Where does Vispato store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Vispato have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Vispato?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | hinweisgeberschutz (3.5/5), EQS Integrity Line (3.5/5) and Safecall (3.5/5) highest among the other 36 Whistleblowing Portals products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | hinweisgeberschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Vispato alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (vispato.com, hrworks.de/unternehmen/sicherheit-bei-hr-works). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.vispato.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page www.hrworks.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →