whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

Whistlelink

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by Whistleblowing Solutions AB · whistlelink.com

Compare with Whistleblower Software by Formalize → 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

Multiple channels are real: written and oral intake, QR/short-link entry, a 24/7 hotline add-on with voice distortion, 50+ languages with auto-translation, WCAG, mobile, and no install — plus a documented code-based anonymity mechanism with two-way anonymous dialog. It only misses the 10-anchor bar because nothing documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself (no IP/metadata statement). 1 2 6

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

The pieces exist — per-report acknowledgment, case management, secure evidence uploads, action/data logs, strict access control, auto-deletion, and monthly monitoring reports on higher tiers — but nowhere does the evidence evidence automated statutory clocks (a 3-month feedback deadline with reminders), conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or a tamper-evident history. As the person who answers for missed clocks, I cannot tell whether the 3-month duty is the system's job or still mine; that keeps it below the 5 anchor. 2 4 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 directive, GDPR, HinSchG and 'national laws' are all invoked, and two duties are implemented as features (per-report acknowledgment, automated deletion), with an external intake/receiver service offered. But the mapping stays marketing-level: no per-transposition rule sets, no feedback-clock feature, no legal review or update process documented — the differing national details appear to remain the customer's problem. 1 2 3 4 6

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

A company-level ISO 27001 certificate, attested external penetration tests, encryption in transit and at rest, MFA and redundancy are more than adjectives — but the anonymity engineering is where it thins out: no end-to-end architecture documentation, no statement on IP or metadata logging, no security contact or disclosure policy. For whistleblowing data, silence on metadata is precisely the question a hostile auditor will ask. 1 3 4 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

Multiple industry/region-specific portals, Flex/Premium customization (logos, questionnaires, texts), extra admin users and third-party intake forwarding suggest N channels under one account — but there is no evidence of separated case access per legal entity, a consolidated group view, delegated administration or ombudsman roles. For a corporate group this reads as rubric level 3: several portals, no entity separation I could defend to a subsidiary. 2 5 6

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

Hosting exclusivity is actually strong: all whistleblower-related data stays within the EEA on Sweden-hosted servers with no processing outside the EU, and the vendor is a Swedish AB. But the transparency around the chain is absent — no DPA, no subprocessor list, and ownership/jurisdiction explicitly unconfirmed in the computed attributes — which is exactly the documentation I need for the most sensitive data we hold. 2 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

A pricing page exists and names plans (Flex, Premium) plus a hotline add-on and tier differences (customization, languages, admin users), but the evidence contains not one figure — no prices, employee bands, VAT treatment or setup fees anywhere in evidence. An obligated company could not compute its invoice from what is published here; this is essentially the 0-anchor situation with a bit of structure. 2 6

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

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

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Whistlelink? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (14)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage (DE) whistlelink.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page whistlelink.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Product page whistlelink.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security page whistlelink.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 About / vendor entity whistlelink.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 FAQ whistlelink.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Imprint www.whistlelink.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Privacy policy www.whistlelink.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.whistlelink.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.whistlelink.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.whistlelink.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.whistlelink.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.whistlelink.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.whistlelink.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →