etracker cloud
- Fair 3.3
- Easy 3.7
- Secure 3.7
FES Scores 9
| Pillar | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | Day-one UX Can non-technical staff use it without a project? | 3 | Full-featured; needs configuration time. Source |
| Easy | Operate Admin burden, updates, backups and language coverage. | 4 | Managed SaaS. Source |
| Easy | Integrate SSO, mail/CalDAV, APIs and common NGO connectors. | 4 | etracker offers integration via standard tracking scripts and APIs documented on their website. Source |
| Fair | Lock-in / exit Can you leave with your data in open formats, at known cost? | 3 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): EU SaaS usually allows export, but remapping integrations still costs effort. Source |
| Fair | Sovereignty EU legal entity, EU hosting, and exposure to extra-EU lawful access? | 5 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): EU legal entity + EU-hosted SaaS offering. Source |
| Fair | Openness Open source or open standards? Are independent implementations possible? | 2 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): proprietary / non-OSI license — openness capped unless open standards dominate. Source |
| Secure | IT security Authentication, encryption, patch cadence and independent audit. | 3 | etracker mentions security measures in their data privacy policy but lacks detailed technical security controls. Source |
| Secure | User security 2FA, roles, phishing resistance and safe defaults. | 3 | etracker provides user controls for data processing but does not explicitly detail user-level security features. Source |
| Secure | Personal data GDPR fit: DPA, residency, sub-processors and Schrems II posture. | 5 | etracker explicitly outlines personal data handling, storage, and processing in their data privacy policy. Source |
Indicative scores from public information — how we score.