Counter cloud
- Fair 4.3
- Easy 5.0
- Secure 3.3
FES Scores 9
| Pillar | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | Day-one UX Can non-technical staff use it without a project? | 5 | Extremely simple. Source |
| Easy | Operate Admin burden, updates, backups and language coverage. | 5 | Managed free/paid cloud. Source |
| Easy | Integrate SSO, mail/CalDAV, APIs and common NGO connectors. | 5 | Counter.dev offers a one-line JavaScript snippet for quick integration with any 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? | 5 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): license classified as open-source family. Source |
| Secure | IT security Authentication, encryption, patch cadence and independent audit. | 3 | Counter.dev's DPA states data processing is hosted in EU with GDPR compliance but does not detail encryption standards. Source |
| Secure | User security 2FA, roles, phishing resistance and safe defaults. | 3 | Counter.dev's privacy policy mentions data minimization and user control but lacks explicit security controls for end-users. Source |
| Secure | Personal data GDPR fit: DPA, residency, sub-processors and Schrems II posture. | 4 | Counter.dev's privacy policy specifies that only anonymized or pseudonymized data is processed. Source |
Indicative scores from public information — how we score.