Whistleblowing Portals

Whistleblower Software by Formalize

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by Whistleblower Software ApS · whistleblowersoftware.com

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Compliance Officer v1.0 · The Reporter's Advocate v1.0 · The SME Operator v1.2 · The Group Counsel v1.0 · The Security Auditor v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.2 · rubric v1 · evaluated 15 Sep 2026

Compare with Whistlelink → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Compliance Officer

Weighted verdict

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

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

Scored by The Compliance Officer

Reporting channels & reporter experience

How this is scored

The intake side: how a reporter actually submits — web form, anonymous dialog, phone/voice, languages, accessibility — and whether anonymity survives first contact.

0 — A web form that is an email in disguise: no anonymous route, no way to reach the reporter afterwards.

3 — An anonymous form exists but the dialogue ends there — no secured mailbox for follow-up questions, few languages, desktop-only.

5 — Anonymous two-way dialog via a protected mailbox, a usable set of languages, mobile-friendly; voice or phone intake missing or an add-on.

8 — Multiple channels (web, voice message or hotline, QR entry points), broad language coverage with translation support, accessibility considered, and the anonymous dialog is first-class rather than bolted on.

10 — Intake engineered around the frightened reporter: every channel anonymous-capable, dozens of languages, WCAG-conscious, no app install or account required, and the vendor documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Anonymous and confidential reporting with two-way follow-up dialog is first-class, and 80+ system languages plus an audited WCAG 2.1 AA rating beat the mid anchor comfortably. What holds it below 8: no evidence anywhere of phone/voice intake, hotline, or alternative entry channels for the frightened reporter. 1 4

Report an error

Case management & deadline discipline

How this is scored

The case worker's side: triage, statutory deadlines (7-day acknowledgment, 3-month feedback), role separation, audit-proof documentation.

0 — Reports land in an inbox; deadlines, roles and history live in a spreadsheet next door.

3 — A case list with status fields, but deadlines are manual, permissions are all-or-nothing, and the record of who did what is thin.

5 — Deadline tracking with reminders for the statutory clocks, case notes and attachments, basic role separation between case handlers; reporting on the caseload is limited.

8 — Automated statutory clocks, conflict-of-interest handling (excluding implicated case handlers), complete tamper-evident case history, retention and deletion rules applied per case, and management reporting.

10 — A case system an external investigator can rely on: enforced workflows, full audit trail, legally aware retention/deletion automation, evidence handling, and statistics that survive a regulator's questions.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Case-level and category-level access control, a 4-eye principle and pseudonymization for multi-handler cases show genuine role separation — better than the all-or-nothing anchor at 3. But 'advanced case management' is a plan bullet with nothing behind it in this sheet: no statutory clocks, no deadline reminders for the 7-day/3-month duties, no tamper-evident history, no caseload reporting, and deadlines are precisely what I answer for. 4 1 6

Report an error

Legal compliance alignment

How this is scored

How specifically the product implements EU Directive 2019/1937 and national transpositions (HinSchG et al.) — not whether the marketing mentions them.

0 — Generic feedback software wearing a whistleblowing label; no reference to the legal obligations it claims to satisfy.

3 — The directive is invoked in marketing but the mapping is vague; deadline rules, documentation duties and retention periods are the customer's problem.

5 — The statutory duties are implemented as product features — acknowledgment and feedback clocks, documentation, deletion after the retention period — for at least one national law, with guidance for the rest.

8 — Multiple national transpositions supported with their differing details, legal templates and process guidance maintained by named counsel or documented review, and updates when the law moves.

10 — The product is a legal instrument: per-country rule sets kept current, documented legal review, guidance for edge cases (group-wide channels, external ombudsman setups), and the vendor shows its homework in public.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

The EU Directive 2019/1937 is named, alongside SOX 301, UK FCA and Loi Sapin II, but it is a list on a security page — no acknowledgment or feedback clocks as features, no retention implementation for case data, no transposition-specific rules, no named counsel. The mapping to actual duties is left as the customer's problem, which is exactly the anchor at 3. 4 3

Report an error

Security & anonymity assurance

How this is scored

Whether the confidentiality promise is engineered and evidenced: encryption, metadata handling, penetration tests, certifications.

0 — Security is a paragraph of adjectives; no certificates, no test reports, no statement on metadata.

3 — TLS and encryption at rest asserted, but nothing audited: no ISO 27001 or equivalent, no published pentest, silence on IP and metadata logging.

5 — A current ISO 27001 (or equivalent) certificate for vendor or hosting, end-to-end encryption of report content claimed with some technical detail, an explicit no-IP-logging statement.

8 — Certified ISMS covering the product, regular third-party penetration tests attested, documented end-to-end encryption architecture, metadata minimization explained, security contact and disclosure policy published.

10 — Assurance a hostile auditor accepts: current certificates with visible scope, recurring pentest summaries public, cryptographic architecture documented, anonymity analysed against the operator itself — the vendor can answer "how would you unmask a reporter?" with "we cannot, and here is why".

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Current ISO 27001:2022 (Intertek, Nov 2024), annual ISAE 3000 Type 2, back-to-back Truesec pentests and ENS High, plus E2EE where the vendor states its own staff cannot read case data — that is real, attested assurance. It misses 8 because there is no metadata minimization story (IP retained up to 14 months), no published security contact or disclosure policy, no cryptographic architecture, and no 'how would you unmask a reporter' analysis. 4 1 5

Report an error

Group & multi-entity capability

How this is scored

Whether one contract can serve a corporate group: separate channels per legal entity, central oversight, ombudsman access, white-labeling.

0 — One company, one channel; a group buys and administers N separate instances.

3 — Multiple channels under one account, but no separation of case access per entity and no consolidated view.

5 — Per-entity channels with separated case handlers and a group-level overview; branding per entity is basic; external counsel access possible.

8 — Real multi-tenant group structure: per-entity channels, languages and branding, delegated administration, external ombudsman roles, group reporting that respects entity boundaries.

10 — Group compliance as architecture: hundreds of entities manageable centrally, per-country legal rule assignment per entity, white-label reporting pages, and access separation strong enough to satisfy each subsidiary's works council.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Unlimited channels, users and languages with case-level access separation and a claimed 5,000,000+ employee footprint gesture at scale, but nothing evidences per-legal-entity channel structure, a group-level consolidated view, external counsel/ombudsman access, delegated administration, or per-entity branding. A corporate group here buys promises, not architecture. 1 4 3

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where reports about people actually live and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. In this category the data is by definition the most sensitive a company holds.

0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for whistleblowing data.

3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.

5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.

8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.

10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors for report content and metadata, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Danish controller (Formalize ApS, Aarhus), all data and backups on AWS in Frankfurt, intra-group transfers confined to Denmark, Spain and Italy, and Schrems II acknowledged — that clears the mid anchor. Below 8 because the subprocessor list is only available on request, Google Analytics and other US-reach services appear in the chain, no public DPA/TOMs are evidenced, and the host itself (AWS) sits within US CLOUD Act reach. 5 4 6

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether an obligated company can compute the real invoice — per entity, per employee band, per year — from public pages alone.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — An entry price exists, but the tiers most obligated companies need are unpriced, or the maths is obscured by employee bands, per-report fees or mandatory setup charges.

5 — Most tiers carry real numbers with billing period and VAT treatment stated, but at least one commonly needed capability — extra entities, extra languages, phone intake — hides in an unpriced add-on.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with employee-band boundaries, entity rules and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.

10 — Complete price computability: every tier, band, add-on and renewal rule public, so the invoice for a 60-employee company and a 5-entity group is a two-minute exercise.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

For my 600 employees the invoice is a two-minute exercise: 500-999 band at €349/€529 per month, billed annually in EUR, with a 14-day trial and clean band boundaries on two named tiers. Held below 8 because VAT treatment is unstated, setup fees are never mentioned, the multi-entity rule is unspecified, and 1,000+ employees drops to 'contact sales'. 6 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

3 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Legal entity	Incorporated in DK ⚠ unverified	3/3 pts	5 Report an error
Ownership	Not determined	—	uncited Report an error
Data residency	EU only ⚠ unverified	3/3 pts	4 Report an error
Subprocessors	US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified	0/2 pts	4 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. The country appears only in a privacy-policy address for the data controller Formalize ApS, with no imprint or commercial register excerpt, and the site footer names a differently worded entity, Whistleblower Software ApS.
Weak sourcing — Data residency. The placement statement sits on the vendor's own security page, and backups are only said to lie in unnamed 'different availability zones', so the contractual default is not confirmed.
Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. AWS is a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act even though the servers are in Frankfurt, and no EU contracting entity of the US parent is named, though the vendor claims E2EE prevents cross-Atlantic government access.
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 legal 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 pricing 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
The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us

Do you know more about Whistleblower Software by Formalize? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (6)

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

1 Product homepage whistleblowersoftware.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
2 About page whistleblowersoftware.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
3 Parent brand Formalize about page formalize.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
4 Security page whistleblowersoftware.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
5 Privacy policy whistleblowersoftware.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
6 Pricing page whistleblowersoftware.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →