Hyperping
- Fair 3.3
- Easy 4.3
- Secure 3.0
FES Scores 9
| Pillar | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | Day-one UX Can non-technical staff use it without a project? | 4 | Typical onboarding for this product category. Source |
| Easy | Operate Admin burden, updates, backups and language coverage. | 5 | Vendor operates the hosted service. Source |
| Easy | Integrate SSO, mail/CalDAV, APIs and common NGO connectors. | 4 | Integrations vary; check current APIs and connectors. 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 | Hyperping provides SOC 2 Type II compliance and GDPR adherence as stated on their website. Source |
| Secure | User security 2FA, roles, phishing resistance and safe defaults. | 3 | Hyperping provides role-based access control (RBAC) for user permissions and security settings. Source |
| Secure | Personal data GDPR fit: DPA, residency, sub-processors and Schrems II posture. | 3 | Hyperping explicitly mentions GDPR compliance and data encryption in transit and at rest. Source |
Indicative scores from public information — how we score.