Whistleblowing Portals
Whispli
Rest of world Report an errorPanel 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 Whispli Pty Ltd · www.whispli.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 panel's verdict
Whispli is an online reporting and case management solution sold by Fraudsec Pty Ltd (ACN 605 003 825), an Australian entity trading as Whispli. The bench's strongest scores are reporting channels & reporter experience at 7-8: seven intake channels — web interface, mobile app, email support, SMS, phone, live chat, hotline — plus 70+ languages, protected two-way dialog and AI voice-to-case transcription, though judges capped it there because anonymity is an option the client may grant the reporter, not a default. Security & anonymity assurance lands at 5-6 on ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II but stops short on encryption described only as SSL. The floor is legal: legal compliance alignment is flat at 3 — a framework list (SOX Section 301, 'European directives', Loi Sapin II) with no feature mapping, statutory clocks left to the buyer — and case management & deadline discipline is flat at 4 on the same silence, while group & multi-entity capability and sovereignty mark a licence-cap, single-inbox product with client-chosen AWS/Azure/Scaleway hosting and no published subprocessor list. The one computed split is pricing transparency, reported but not counted; persona-weighted totals run 4.0-5.2.
Speaks for it
- Intake across seven channels — web interface, mobile app, email support, SMS, phone, live chat, hotline — in 70+ languages with protected two-way communication (reporting channels & reporter experience scored 7-8).
- AI transcription converts voice disclosures into structured cases for distributed workforces.
- ISO 27001 certification scoped to the entire platform plus SOC 2 Type II, with an ongoing independent security audit asserted.
- Vendor states it cannot access report data and shares nothing with third parties, not even for translation.
- Automated real-time triage with template and custom workflows, plus an activity log and analytics from the Business tier.
Held against it
- Anonymity is granted at the client's option ('An Informant may be granted by the Client the option to remain anonymous'), not engineered as the default.
- The evidence is silent on statutory acknowledgment and feedback clocks, role separation and conflict-of-interest exclusion, leaving deadline and retention duties to the customer.
- Legal frameworks (US SOX Section 301, 'European directives', UK FCA rules, German Corporate Governance Code, French Loi Sapin II) are named with no feature mapping, and Directive 2019/1937 and HinSchG appear nowhere in the evidence.
- No per-entity channels, separated case access, delegated administration or consolidated group view — licence caps of 3/5/10 with 20 seats on Enterprise wrap one multichannel inbox.
- Encryption is described only as 'SSL encryption to store and transfer', the recorded certificate standard is ISO 27001:2013, and no subprocessor list or pentest summaries are published.
Best for
- You need broad multilingual intake — web, phone, hotline, SMS, live chat, email and mobile app in 70+ languages — for a distributed workforce.
- You operate a single legal entity and are resourced to run statutory deadlines, role separation and legal mapping outside the tool.
- You want ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II on record and will contract a specific hosting region — AWS, Azure or Scaleway — from the Plus tier.
Avoid if
- You are a corporate group needing per-entity channels, separated case access or a consolidated group view — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need the product itself to track statutory clocks, exclude conflicted handlers or automate retention — case management & deadline discipline and legal compliance alignment sit at 4 and 3.
- You require engineered-default anonymity or documented end-to-end encryption — judges capped reporting channels & reporter experience and security & anonymity assurance on exactly these gaps.
The scores
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
Seven intake channels including phone, hotline, SMS and live chat plus 70+ languages with protected two-way dialog and anonymous mobile reporting sits right at the anchor-8 line. It stays below because anonymity is something the client 'may grant' the informant rather than first-class by design, and the evidence is silent on WCAG, QR entry points, and how the reporter's identity stays out of the channel itself. 1 2 5
The Reporter's Advocate
Phone, hotline, SMS and web intake in 70+ languages, a protected two-way dialog and voice-to-case transcription are close to what a night-shift reporter needs. But anonymity is 'granted by the Client' rather than first-class, nothing evidences accessibility or how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself, and the flagship follow-up experience is an app-store install — a route the frightened should never be pushed down. 1 2 5
The SME Operator
Web, phone, hotline, SMS, live chat and mobile apps with 70+ languages and protected two-way anonymous dialog is genuinely strong intake, and voice-to-case AI transcription helps accessibility. Anonymity is an option the client grants rather than a first-class guarantee, and nothing documents how reporter identity is kept out of the channel itself, so I stop at the 8 anchor. 1 2 4
The Group Counsel
Web, mobile app, phone, hotline, SMS, live chat and email intake in 70+ languages with protected two-way anonymous dialog is genuinely broad, and voice-to-case transcription serves distributed workforces. But anonymity is 'granted by the Client' rather than engineered as the default, automated secure translation caps at 5 languages even on Enterprise, and the evidence says nothing on accessibility or how identity stays out of the channel itself. 1 2 4 5
The Security Auditor
Web, mobile app, SMS, phone, live chat and hotline plus 70+ languages with protected two-way dialog is genuinely broad intake. But the privacy policy says anonymity is something the Client "may be granted" — a discretionary option, not an engineered default — and nothing documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself, which caps it below the top anchors. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Breadth is real — web, app, SMS, phone, live chat, hotline and 70+ languages — but the privacy policy quietly demotes anonymity to a client-granted option ('may be granted by the Client the option to remain anonymous'), which is anonymity as a toggle, not as engineering. Nothing documents how the reporter's identity stays out of the channel metadata, and accessibility/WCAG is entirely unevidenced. 1 2 4 5
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
Automated real-time triage with template and custom workflows and an activity log plus analytics from the Business plan beat a bare case list — but nowhere does the evidence evidence statutory clocks, deadline reminders, role separation or conflict-of-interest exclusion, and retention is a vague 'period necessary' clause. Every missed 7-day or 3-month clock would be my problem, not the product's. 2 4 5
The Reporter's Advocate
Automated triage, configurable workflows, an activity log and analytics are more than a spreadsheet, but the evidence is entirely silent on the statutory clocks — no 7-day acknowledgment reminder, no 3-month feedback tracking, no conflict-of-interest exclusion, no tamper-evidence claim. Retention is a generic purpose-based sentence, not deadline discipline. 2 4 5
The SME Operator
Automated triage, flexible workflows, an activity log and analytics exist, which is more than a status-field list. But the evidence is entirely silent on the statutory 7-day acknowledgment and 3-month feedback clocks, conflict-of-interest handling and retention automation — the exact legal duties I need the product to own — so it sits below the anchor that requires deadline tracking. 2 4
The Group Counsel
Automated triage, configurable workflows, an activity log and analytics lift this above a bare status list, but the evidence is silent on everything that makes a case file legally usable: no statutory acknowledgment or feedback clocks, no role separation or conflict-of-interest exclusion, and retention is only purpose-based boilerplate ('as long as necessary'). 2 4 5
The Security Auditor
Automated real-time triage and flexible workflows with an activity log and analytics from the Business tier is a working case system. But the evidence is completely silent on statutory clocks (7-day acknowledgment, 3-month feedback), role separation, conflict-of-interest handling and tamper-evidence — for a product sold against whistleblower laws, that silence is the finding. 2 4
The Skeptic
Automated triage, flexible workflows, an activity log and analytics put this above a bare case list, but the evidence is completely silent on the statutory 7-day/3-month clocks, role separation, conflict-of-interest exclusion, and tamper-evidence — 'activity log' is not an audit-proof case history. For a product sold to HinSchG-obligated companies, zero deadline discipline evidence is the loudest silence here. 2 4
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
The frameworks are name-dropped — Loi Sapin II, German Corporate Governance Code, 'European directives' — but the mapping is pure marketing: no per-country rule sets, no legal templates, no named counsel, and no implementation of acknowledgment/feedback clocks or retention automation anywhere in the evidence. That is the anchor-3 profile exactly: the directive is invoked, the obligations are mine. 2 5
The Reporter's Advocate
'European directives' and Loi Sapin II sit in a marketing list with no feature mapping behind them — no HinSchG, no Directive 2019/1937 by name, no legal review. The privacy policy is Australian/EU and retention is purpose-based, so deadline rules, documentation duties and deletion periods are the customer's problem. 2 5
The SME Operator
"European directives" is invoked vaguely alongside Loi Sapin II and the German Corporate Governance Code, but EU Directive 2019/1937 and HinSchG never appear, and no acknowledgment/feedback clocks, documentation duties or retention periods are evidenced as product features. The legal mapping is left as my problem, which is the failure mode I specifically won't pay for. 2 5
The Group Counsel
The framework list — 'European directives', Loi Sapin II, German Corporate Governance Code — is marketing-level naming: nowhere is Directive 2019/1937 or any national transposition implemented as product features, no legal review or counsel is named, and deadline and retention duties are left to the customer. 2 5
The Security Auditor
The framework list — "European directives", Loi Sapin II, German Corporate Governance Code — is marketing invocation with no mapping: no Directive 2019/1937 or HinSchG feature set, no acknowledgment/feedback clocks, no named counsel or documented legal review. Retention is generic privacy-policy boilerplate, not statutory-deadline implementation. 2 5
The Skeptic
The legal page is a name-drop list — SOX 301, 'European directives', Loi Sapin II — with the EU whistleblowing directive (2019/1937) and HinSchG never named, and no statutory deadline, documentation or retention duty implemented as a feature anywhere in the evidence. Retention is boilerplate ('unless a longer retention period is required or permitted by law') and no counsel, legal review or law-update process is identified — this is compliance marketing, not compliance implementation. 2 5
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
ISO 27001 covering the entire platform plus SOC 2 Type II and ongoing independent security audits exceed the anchor-5 certificate floor, and the vendor claims it cannot access report content, not even for translation, done on-premise. It stops short of rubric level 8 because encryption is described only as 'SSL to store and transfer' with no cryptographic architecture, no explicit no-IP-logging statement, and no published pentest summaries — I cannot yet answer 'how would you unmask a reporter?' with evidence. 2 4 5
The Reporter's Advocate
ISO 27001 across the entire platform plus SOC 2 Type II and ongoing independent audits is real, evidenced assurance, and the vendor claims it cannot access report data even for translation. But encryption is described only as 'SSL', there is silence on IP and metadata logging, no published pentest summary or disclosure policy — and nobody answers 'how would you unmask a reporter?' 2 4 5
The SME Operator
ISO 27001 covering the entire platform plus SOC 2 Type II and a claim that the vendor cannot access report data even for translation is above the 5 anchor. But encryption is described only as SSL, there is no statement on IP/metadata logging, no pentest summaries beyond "ongoing independent audit", and no disclosure policy — so a hostile auditor still has unanswered questions. 2 4 5
The Group Counsel
ISO 27001 across the entire platform plus SOC 2 Type II and an asserted ongoing independent audit is a solid base, and 'can't access your data, not even to translate' speaks to anonymity. But the only encryption statement is 'SSL encryption to store and transfer' — no end-to-end architecture, no published pentest summaries, no statement on IP or metadata logging. 2 4 5
The Security Auditor
ISO 27001 scoped to "the entire platform, not just the hosting infrastructure" plus SOC 2 Type II is more than most vendors show. But the crypto claim is one technically incoherent sentence — "SSL encryption to store and transfer" — with no end-to-end architecture, no statement on IP or metadata logging, and "ongoing independent security audit" is an adjective until a dated report exists; I can't verify an anonymity promise nobody documents. 2 4 5
The Skeptic
ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II are asserted but no certificate or scope is published, and the version on record is 27001:2013 — a superseded standard as of a Sept 2026 capture, which makes 'certified' a claim, not a fact I can check. The only cryptographic detail offered is 'SSL encryption to store and transfer'; no E2EE architecture, no pentest reports despite an 'ongoing independent audit' assertion, no metadata/IP-logging statement, no disclosure policy. 2 4 5
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
'Multichannel reporting inbox' means intake channels feeding one inbox, not channels per legal entity — the evidence evidences no entity-scoped case access, no delegated administration, no consolidated group view, and no ombudsman roles; the only sharing signal is 3rd-party shared access from Business. For a corporate group this reads as one shared account, which is the anchor-3 ceiling at best. 2 4
The Reporter's Advocate
The evidence shows licence-count tiers (3/5/10/20) and a multichannel inbox, never per-entity channels, delegated administration, ombudsman roles or a consolidated group view; only '3rd-party shared access' hints outsiders can reach cases at all. Silence is information — there is no evidenced group architecture here. 2 4
The SME Operator
Nothing in the evidence evidences per-entity channels, separated case access, delegated administration or a consolidated group view — only licence caps of 3/5/10/20 seats and third-party shared access. By absence, a corporate group buys and administers N separate instances, which is below the anchor requiring any per-entity separation. 2 4
The Group Counsel
This is a single-account, seat-count product — 3/5/10 licences, 20 seats — with a multichannel inbox and configurable forms but zero evidence of per-entity channels, separated case access per subsidiary, delegated administration, group reporting or an external ombudsman role; the API and '3rd-party shared access' are the only external hooks. For 25 subsidiaries this reads as one channel, not a group architecture. 2 4
The Security Auditor
The evidence says nothing about per-entity channels, delegated administration, group oversight, ombudsman roles or white-labeling — only "3rd-party shared access" at Business and an integration API. A corporate group's requirements are entirely unevidenced, so this sits at the bottom of the partial anchors. 2 4
The Skeptic
The evidence evidences nothing about multi-entity operation: no per-entity channels, no separated case access, no group overview, no delegated administration, no ombudsman role — just case-handler licence caps per plan and a generic '3rd-party shared access' line. Missing evidence is information: nothing here says one contract could serve a corporate group at all. 4
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
The contracting entity is Fraudsec Pty Ltd of North Sydney, EU hosting is a chosen-region option available only from the Plus tier alongside AWS/Azure with their US CLOUD Act reach, and DPAs are referenced but no subprocessor list is published anywhere. That is rubric level 3 verbatim: EU region on request or top tiers, subprocessor exposure undocumented — for the most sensitive data my company holds. 2 4 5
The Reporter's Advocate
The vendor is Fraudsec Pty Ltd of North Sydney, hosting is client-chosen across AWS, Azure or Scaleway in six regions including the US and UAE, and a European DPA is referenced — an EU region on the right tier with subprocessors undocumented. Russian and Chinese 'local hosting partners' deepen rather than answer where the most sensitive data a company holds actually lives. 2 4 5
The SME Operator
The entity holding my whistleblowing data is Fraudsec Pty Ltd, North Sydney, Australia, with hosting on AWS/Azure (US CLOUD Act reach) unless I actively choose Scaleway on the Plus tier or above. A European DPA exists and data stays in the agreed region, but no subprocessor list is published and the default is not EU — that is the 3 anchor, and for the most sensitive data a company holds it makes me uneasy. 2 4 5
The Group Counsel
The vendor is Fraudsec Pty Ltd, an Australian entity with US offices and US-based support teams; EU hosting is a client choice from the Plus tier rather than a default, a European DPA is referenced but no subprocessor list is published and the provider menu defaults to AWS/Azure. The Russia/China 'local hosting partners' capability is a jurisdictional wildcard I want nowhere near whistleblower data. 2 4 5
The Security Auditor
The legal entity is Fraudsec Pty Ltd, North Sydney, Australia — non-European — with EU hosting only a client-selectable option among AWS, Azure, Scaleway across six regions, no published subprocessor list, and DPAs existing but data residency attributes unconfirmed. And they advertise Russian and Chinese data residency via "trusted local hosting partners" — routing whistleblower content into jurisdictions that hunt whistleblowers is not a sovereignty feature, it's a liability. 2 5
The Skeptic
The data lives with Fraudsec Pty Ltd, North Sydney — an Australian entity under Australian law for the most sensitive data a company holds — with EU hosting only as a client choice (from the Plus tier) on AWS/Azure, both within US CLOUD Act reach. A Europe DPA is referenced but there is no subprocessor list, no named data centers, and the Russia/China 'trusted local hosting partners' are undisclosed processors in jurisdictions hostile to reporter anonymity. 2 4 5
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
panel disagrees
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
The pricing page publishes tier structure, licence counts and even a 3-year annualised billing rule, but the price itself is 'Get a quote' with no public number for any tier. An obligated company cannot compute any invoice from public pages alone — every tier is a sales conversation, which is rubric level 0. 4
The Reporter's Advocate
A public pricing page exists with tier names, licence caps, 3-year annualised terms and VAT treatment — but every actual figure is 'Get a quote / Talk to sales'. An obligated company can compute nothing from these pages, and even non-profits must pick up the phone. 4
The SME Operator
The pricing page shows plan structure and licence counts but the model is "Get a quote / Talk to sales" — not a single public number. Add a 3-year annualised contract with taxes excluded and I cannot compute my invoice in two minutes or defend it at year-end review; this is barely above the 0 anchor. 4
The Group Counsel
The pricing model is literally 'Get a quote' with no public per-seat price; the tier skeletons (3/5/10 licences, 20 seats, 3-year annualised contract, taxes excluded) show structure but no numbers. For a 5-entity group the invoice is uncomputable from public pages — this is a sales conversation in tier clothing. 4
The Security Auditor
Licence caps per tier, 3-year annualised contract terms and VAT exclusion are stated, but the model is "Get a quote" with no public per-seat price, Enterprise is a sales conversation, and employee bands and per-entity rules are absent entirely — no obligated company can compute its invoice from these pages. 4
The Skeptic
The pricing model is literally 'Get a quote / Talk to sales, no public per-seat price shown' — not one number for any tier. Licence caps, the 3-year/annualised contract and taxes-excluded treatment are public, but an obligated company cannot compute any invoice; only the nonprofit discount exists, and that too is 'contact us'. 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 1 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. US-headquartered AWS and Azure are offered alongside the French sovereign provider Scaleway, with the hosting choice per client; the DPA sub-processor table itself is left "[TO COMPLETE]" so the full list is not published.
- 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.
- 18 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 13 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 data 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
- 1 support 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.whispli.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.whispli.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 About page www.whispli.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Pricing page www.whispli.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.whispli.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Security / trust page www.whispli.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Data processing agreement (dpa) www.whispli.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap help.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap help.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap help.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap help.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap help.whispli.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →