Whistleblowing Portals
WhistleB
Provenance unknown 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 WhistleB AB (NAVEX) · whistleb.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
WhistleB, a whistleblowing portal from Swedish vendor WhistleB AB backed by NAVEX, is strongest at intake: the reporting channels score sits at a uniform 7, crediting anonymous web, mobile and phone reporting in 60+ languages with two-way dialogue. Case management runs 6 to 7 — guided workflows, reminders, full audit trails, audit-ready reporting — with no public information found on statutory clocks, implicated-handler exclusion or per-case retention. The weakest counted area is compliance alignment at 3 to 4: the pages invoke a GDPR-first architecture and EU data storage, but we found no public information naming the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition. The widest spread is multi-entity scale, from 2 to 4 — the reporter's advocate credits configurable routing and granular access controls aimed at complex, global programs, while the security auditor's 2 calls that adjective-level, with no per-entity channels or group oversight shown. Security assurance and sovereignty each land at a uniform 4 — real encryption detail against ISO/IEC 27001 stated as alignment, not certification. Prices are unstated and the only route is a demo.
Speaks for it
- Anonymous reporting via web, mobile or phone in 60+ languages, with two-way dialogue and translations.
- Case management covers guided workflows, reminders, full audit trails and audit-ready reporting.
- AES/RSA encryption from submission through review, with case data not in plain text outside the secure decryption process, plus customer-controlled keys.
- Data is stated to be stored in the EU under a GDPR-first architecture, from a Swedish vendor.
- AI-assisted redaction of personally identifiable information is stated as available.
Held against it
- No prices are stated, with the only paths offered being talking to an expert or booking a demo.
- The ISO/IEC 27001 posture is stated as aligned practices, alignment rather than certification.
- We found no public information naming the EU whistleblowing directive or national transpositions such as the German HinSchG.
- We found no public information on per-entity channels, delegated administration or a group-level consolidated view.
- We found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list, named data centers, or where the NAVEX ownership sits juridically.
Best for
- You need anonymous intake across web, mobile and phone in 60+ languages for employees, suppliers and other third parties.
- You want an auditable case record — guided workflows, reminders, full audit trails and audit-ready reporting.
- You want a Swedish vendor that states data is stored in the EU under a GDPR-first architecture.
- You value engineered encryption: AES/RSA with customer-controlled keys and multi-factor authentication.
Avoid if
- You require ISO/IEC 27001 certification, since the captured claim is aligned practices, alignment stated rather than certification.
- You need a documented multi-entity structure — per-entity channels and group-level oversight — rather than configurable-routing language about complex, global programs.
- You need the law named — the EU whistleblowing directive and national transpositions — mapped to the workflows you will be audited against, not just a GDPR-first invocation.
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
Web, mobile and phone intake with anonymity claimed across all three, two-way dialogue, and 60+ languages put phone among the first-class channels rather than an add-on. I found no public information on accessibility, QR or app-free entry points, or how a reporter's identity stays out of the phone channel — exactly the detail that separates an engineered anonymous hotline from a voicemail box. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Anonymous intake spans web, mobile and phone in 60+ languages, with a two-way dialogue so a frightened reporter can answer follow-ups without ever giving a name — that is the shape I look for. What holds it back is that we found no public information on accessibility, on QR or offline entry points, or on how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself. 1
The SME Operator
Web, mobile and phone intake in 60+ languages with anonymous reporting and two-way dialogue is a strong intake setup. It stops short of the top band because we found no public information on accessibility or on how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself. 1
The Group Counsel
Reports arrive anonymously via web, mobile or phone in 60+ languages with two-way dialogue — that is the multi-channel anonymous intake a dozen countries requires. I found no public information on accessibility provision or on how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself, so I hold back from the top. 1
The Security Auditor
Web, mobile and phone intake with anonymous reporting claimed, 60+ languages, and translation inside the two-way dialogue is a credible intake story. But we found no public information on accessibility, QR-style entry points, or how a reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself — especially how the phone route preserves anonymity. 1
The Skeptic
Web, mobile and phone intake in 60+ languages with two-way dialogue is claimed, and that breadth is more than the mid reading of intake quality. But anonymity is asserted in a single marketing sentence, and I found no public information on accessibility, on how identity is kept out of the phone channel, or on whether mobile means an app install — so it lands short of the strongest reading. 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
Guided workflows covering acknowledgment, follow-up and reminders, full audit trails, granular access controls, automation and audit-ready reporting — more than a status list, and a trail I could plausibly defend. What I found no public information on: tying reminders to the statutory seven-day and three-month clocks, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, and retention or deletion rules applied per case. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Guided workflows with reminders, acknowledgment and follow-up support, granular role-based access and full audit trails give the case worker real structure, and audit-ready reporting is claimed. We found no public information on automated statutory clocks, on excluding implicated case handlers from a case, or on per-case retention and deletion rules. 1
The SME Operator
Guided workflows, reminders, full audit trails and audit-ready reporting are all stated, which covers the working core of case handling. The statutory deadlines are not named as automated clocks, and we found no public information on conflict-of-interest handling or per-case retention and deletion rules. 1
The Group Counsel
Guided workflows, reminders, role-based permissions, granular access controls, full audit trails and audit-ready reporting are all claimed, which is a credible case worker's toolkit. I found no public information tying the reminders to the statutory acknowledgment and feedback clocks, on conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or on per-case retention and deletion — the checks outside counsel runs first in a twelve-country deployment. 1
The Security Auditor
Guided workflows with reminders, full audit trails, granular role-based access controls and audit-ready reporting are all claimed with specifics. What the pages do not show is the statutory discipline: we found no public information on automated 7-day/3-month clocks, exclusion of implicated case handlers, or per-case retention and deletion rules. 1
The Skeptic
Guided workflows, reminders, role-based permissions, PII management and 'full audit trails' are all claimed alongside audit-ready reporting — enough to clear the middle ground. What the captured page does not evidence is an automated statutory clock, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or retention and deletion rules applied per case; 'audit-ready' is an adjective, not documentation. 1
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 pages invoke EU whistleblowing requirements and a GDPR-first architecture, but the mapping is vague: no named directive, no national transpositions such as the German HinSchG, and no legal templates or documented counsel review. Acknowledgment and follow-up workflows exist as product features, yet I found no public information connecting them to any specific national law. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
A GDPR-first architecture with EU data storage plus product-level acknowledgment and follow-up workflows implement pieces of the legal duty. But we found no public information on the EU whistleblowing directive, national transpositions, legal templates, or any documented review by named counsel. 1
The SME Operator
Acknowledgment, follow-up and PII workflows exist and GDPR is invoked, but nothing names the EU whistleblowing directive or a national transposition such as the HinSchG, and we found no public information on legal templates or counsel review. For an obligated company, the law whose deadlines I must meet is never named. 1
The Group Counsel
The page invokes a GDPR-first architecture and EU whistleblowing requirements, with acknowledgment, follow-up and PII-management workflows, but the legal mapping stays vague. I found no public information on the EU whistleblowing directive's specific duties, national transpositions, per-country rule sets, legal templates, or named counsel and documented legal review. 1
The Security Auditor
The pages lean on a GDPR-first architecture and "compliant workflows" without ever naming Directive 2019/1937 or any national transposition such as the German HinSchG. Acknowledgment and follow-up exist as workflow features, but deadline rules, documentation duties and retention periods are left to the customer, and we found no public information on legal templates or documented counsel review. 1
The Skeptic
The closest thing to legal grounding is a 'GDPR-first architecture' said to support EU whistleblowing requirements, with acknowledgment and follow-up workflows as features. But I found no public information naming the EU whistleblowing directive, any national transposition, legal counsel or a promise of updates when the law moves — the mapping to statutory duties is left to the buyer's imagination. 1
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
Encryption is described with genuine technical substance — AES/RSA, case data not in plain text outside the secure decryption process, customer-controlled keys, multi-factor authentication — more than a paragraph of adjectives. But the captured claim is ISO/IEC 27001 alignment, stated as alignment and not certification, and I found no public information on penetration tests, an audited ISMS, security contact or IP and metadata logging. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
The encryption story carries genuine technical detail — AES/RSA with case data never in plain text outside the decryption process, customer-controlled keys, and multi-factor authentication — and anonymous reporting is named. But the ISO/IEC 27001 posture is described as aligned practices rather than a certification, and we found no public information on penetration tests, on IP or metadata logging, or on a security contact and disclosure policy. 1
The SME Operator
AES/RSA encryption with customer-controlled keys and data in plaintext only during decryption is real technical detail, above a paragraph of adjectives. But ISO 27001 is stated as aligned practices rather than a certification, and we found no public information on penetration tests, metadata or IP-logging, or a security contact and disclosure policy. 1
The Group Counsel
Encryption is engineered rather than asserted: AES/RSA from submission through review, customer-controlled keys, and multi-factor authentication. But the ISO/IEC 27001 posture is stated as aligned practices, alignment rather than certification, and I found no public information on penetration tests, current certificates, or IP and metadata logging. 1
The Security Auditor
The encryption story has genuine substance — AES/RSA with case data available in plain text only inside the secure decryption process, plus customer-controlled encryption keys. But the ISO 27001 posture is explicitly alignment stated rather than certification, and we found no public information on penetration tests, a security contact or disclosure policy, or IP and metadata logging — the part that actually decides whether anonymity survives. 1
The Skeptic
AES/RSA encryption with case data never in plain text outside the decryption process, plus customer-controlled keys, is more technical detail than most vendors show. But 'ISO 27001-aligned practices — alignment stated, not certification' is exactly the certificate-shaped claim I hunt, and I found no public information on an actual certificate, penetration tests, or how IP and metadata are handled. 1
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
Configurable routing, granular access controls and language about complex global programs hint at group use, but I found no public information on per-entity channels, separated case access per subsidiary, a group-level overview, or ombudsman and external counsel roles. As evidenced, this reads as scalable single-program software rather than a documented multi-entity architecture. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Configurable routing, scalable workflows and granular access controls are explicitly aimed at increasingly complex, global programs. We found no public information on channels separated per legal entity, group-level oversight, per-entity branding, delegated administration, or external ombudsman access. 1
The SME Operator
Configurable routing and granular access controls aimed at complex, global programs are claimed, which gestures at scale. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, group-level oversight, delegated administration or ombudsman access. 1
The Group Counsel
Scalable workflows, configurable routing and granular access controls for complex organizational needs are promised, backed by NAVEX's global program experience. I found no public information on per-entity channels, separated case access per subsidiary, delegated administration, external ombudsman roles, or group reporting that respects entity boundaries — so this reads as one account with channels rather than a structure for 25 legal entities. 1
The Security Auditor
"Scalable workflows" and "granular access controls designed to support increasingly complex organizational needs" is adjective-level group capability. We found no public information on per-entity channels, delegated administration, external ombudsman roles, white-labeling, or a consolidated group view that respects entity boundaries. 1
The Skeptic
Configurable routing, granular access controls and packaging 'for complex, global programs' gesture at group scale without evidencing any of its architecture. I found no public information on per-entity channel separation, delegated administration, external ombudsman access or a group-level consolidated view — scalable marketing is not multi-entity structure. 1
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
A Swedish vendor with data stored in the EU and a GDPR-first posture is the right starting position for this data. I found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list, or named data centers, and the NAVEX backing leaves open non-European jurisdictional reach somewhere in the chain. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Reports are stated to be stored in the EU under a GDPR-first architecture — the right home for the most sensitive data a company holds. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, named data centers, or the jurisdictional reach of the NAVEX parent. 1
The SME Operator
EU data storage is stated plainly alongside a GDPR-first architecture, which is the right default for this data. But we found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list or named data centers, and NAVEX's backing raises ownership questions the captured page does not address. 1
The Group Counsel
Data is stated to be stored in the EU under a GDPR-first architecture, which is where reports about people belong. No sovereignty attributes are on record, and I found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list, named data centres, or the jurisdictional position of the NAVEX backing. 1
The Security Auditor
EU data storage is stated flatly as part of the GDPR-first claim, which is the right default, and the vendor entity is Swedish. But the sovereignty record is otherwise empty: we found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list, named data centers, or the jurisdiction of NAVEX, the backer named on the page. 1
The Skeptic
EU data storage is stated flatly and the vendor is a Swedish company, which is a genuine start for this data category. But I found no public information on a DPA, a subprocessor list, or named data centers, and the NAVEX backing is announced without a word on where that ownership sits juridically — the most sensitive chain in the category is undocumented. 1
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
Modular packaging from essential to advanced functionality with no prices stated, and the only offered path is talking to an expert or booking a demo. An obligated company cannot compute any part of its invoice from the public pages. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
The captured page describes modular packaging from essential to advanced functionality with no prices stated, and the only route offered is talking to an expert or booking a demo. An obligated company cannot compute any part of its invoice from public pages; this is a pure sales conversation. 1
The SME Operator
The page offers modular packaging from essential to advanced functionality with no prices stated, and the only paths forward are booking a demo or talking to an expert. I cannot compute an invoice for a 60-employee company from public pages, so by definition this is a sales conversation for every tier. 1
The Group Counsel
Packaging is described as modular, from essential to advanced, with no prices stated, and the only route forward is talking to an expert or booking a demo. No obligated company could compute a real invoice for even one entity from these pages, let alone a five-entity group. 1
The Security Auditor
Modular packaging "from essential whistleblowing capabilities... to advanced functionality" with no prices stated, and every path on the page ending at "talk to an expert" or a demo. An obligated company cannot compute any part of the real invoice from public information. 1
The Skeptic
Zero numbers anywhere: the captured text says 'modular packaging from essential to advanced functionality' with prices not stated, and the only purchase path shown is talking to an expert or booking a demo. No obligated company can compute an invoice from these pages, which is the bottom score by definition. 1
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU optional ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 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 — Data residency. The page presents US and EU hosting as parallel conditional options ('If your data is hosted in the US… If your data is hosted in the EU…') without stating which region is the default, and it advertises 'cross-border data transfers to the U.S.', so the EU region is a choice rather than a stated default.
- 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.
- 1 compliance 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
- 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 (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page whistleb.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.navex.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.navex.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →