Self-hosted
- Fair 4.7
- Easy 3.7
- Secure 3.3
FES Scores 9
| Pillar | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | Day-one UX Can non-technical staff use it without a project? | 4 | Editors can work after a short intro. Source |
| Easy | Operate Admin burden, updates, backups and language coverage. | 3 | Updates and backups are mandatory. Source |
| Easy | Integrate SSO, mail/CalDAV, APIs and common NGO connectors. | 4 | Forms, SSO and CRM plugins are plentiful — vet them. Source |
| Fair | Lock-in / exit Can you leave with your data in open formats, at known cost? | 5 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): self-host + open-source path supports exit with your data. Source |
| Fair | Sovereignty EU legal entity, EU hosting, and exposure to extra-EU lawful access? | 4 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): non-EU vendor; self-host still lets you pick EU infra — verify update/support exposure. Source |
| Fair | Openness Open source or open standards? Are independent implementations possible? | 5 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): license classified as open-source family. Source |
| Secure | IT security Authentication, encryption, patch cadence and independent audit. | 3 | Core is fine; plugins are the risk. Source |
| Secure | User security 2FA, roles, phishing resistance and safe defaults. | 3 | Role model is OK; brute-force logins are common. Source |
| Secure | Personal data GDPR fit: DPA, residency, sub-processors and Schrems II posture. | 4 | EU hosting plus a short plugin list is a workable GDPR story. Source |
Indicative scores from public information — how we score.