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 Security Auditor

Weighted verdict

Pentests the anonymity promise for a living. Optimizes for evidenced security: current certificates with visible scope, published pentests, documented end-to-end encryption, metadata minimization, and hosting outside hostile jurisdictional reach. Rejects adjective security and "military-grade" anything.

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

Scored by The Security Auditor

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 Security Auditor

This is the strongest part of the product: written and oral channels with voice recording plus voice distortion for anonymity, QR entry, 50+ languages with auto-translation, WCAG, mobile-friendly, no install, and a documented code-based mechanism where no personal data is requested. It stops short of a 9-10 because the live 24/7 hotline's anonymity capability is not documented and nothing addresses whether the channel itself leaks metadata (IP logging) about the reporter. 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 Security Auditor

Case management exists with audit logs, strict access control, acknowledgements and GDPR-timeline auto-deletion, plus monitoring reports on higher tiers — that clears rubric level 3's 'thin record' floor. But there is zero evidence of automated statutory clocks (7-day/3-month reminders), conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, tamper-evidence, or granular role separation, so it does not reach rubric level 5. 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 Security Auditor

HinSchG is named and acknowledgement plus automated deletion exist as product features, which lifts it above pure marketing invocation — but 'fully compliant with GDPR, the directive and national laws' is adjective compliance. No evidence of feedback-deadline features, per-country rule sets, legal templates, or any documented legal review; the retention claim is tied to generic GDPR timelines, not whistleblower-specific periods. 1 2 3 4

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 Security Auditor

There is an ISO 27001 certificate — but scoped to the company, 'Informationssicherheit', with no visible product scope, certifying body, or validity dates — and a one-line 'external penetration tests' claim with no report, cadence, or summary. Encryption is in-transit and at-rest only; end-to-end encryption of report content is never claimed, and the evidence is completely silent on IP logging and metadata minimization — for an anonymity product, that silence decides the score below rubric level 5. 3 4

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 Security Auditor

Industry/region-specific portals and per-brand customization on Flex/Premium suggest multiple channels, and external intake/receiver services exist — but that is exactly rubric level 3. Nothing on separation of case access per legal entity, delegated administration, group-level consolidated reporting, or ombudsman/external-counsel roles; for a corporate group, the evidence is simply not there. 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 Security Auditor

The hosting claims are genuinely good and specific: servers in Sweden, all whistleblower-related data kept within the EEA, no personal data processed or hosted outside the EU, and the entity is a Swedish AB. But the paper chain is absent — no DPA published, no subprocessor list, no named data centers — so it cannot reach rubric level 5, which requires a published DPA and subprocessor transparency, and the sovereignty attributes themselves flag these as unconfirmed. 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 Security Auditor

A pricing page was captured and it enumerates tiers, add-ons and services — but not a single price figure survives into the evidence: no tier prices, no billing periods, no employee-band boundaries, and the Flex/Premium split plus the hotline add-on are unpriced. An obligated company cannot compute an invoice from what is evidenced here, which sits just above rubric level 0 only because a pricing page exists at all. 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 →