Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Dastra vs caralegal: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Dastra and caralegal across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
DastracaralegalComparison
Which public claims, review signals, caveats and capability rows are evidenced.
How much work it takes to implement, maintain and export the privacy record.
The questions a privacy team should ask before switching or shortlisting.
On this page
Key takeaways
- Dastra and caralegal are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Dastra is publicly documented for 19 of 20 tracked capabilities, caralegal for 19.
- The clearest differences: Dastra adds Consent management; caralegal adds Public pricing.
- Dastra's public lane is All-in-one EU (French-rooted, CNIL-fluent) data privacy and governance platform for DPOs and compliance teams; caralegal's public lane is All-in-one EU/DACH Data Responsibility Platform with breach, deletion, cookie-check and training modules.
- Coverage marks reflect what each vendor publicly documents. Confirm live scope, pricing and export formats with each vendor before deciding.
01Short answer
Dastra vs caralegal
Dastra is positioned as: All-in-one EU (French-rooted, CNIL-fluent) data privacy and governance platform for DPOs and compliance teams. caralegal is positioned as: All-in-one EU/DACH Data Responsibility Platform with breach, deletion, cookie-check and training modules. Across the tracked capabilities Dastra and caralegal cover much of the same ground, so the decision rests more on operating model, depth and jurisdiction fit than on feature presence.
Dastra and caralegal have the same public-documentation count in this comparison (19 of 20 tracked rows each). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
Dastra vs caralegal at a glance
| Decision question | Dastra | caralegal | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Teams that want an established all-in-one GDPR platform with consent, cookie scanning, training and strong French/CNIL alignment | DACH and EU teams that want an established all-in-one Data Responsibility Platform with breach handling, deletion concepts, training and per-entity pricing | Privacy teams that need a focused operating layer for connected records, evidence packs, human approval and Ireland/UK/EU workflows |
| Operating model | An all-in-one EU data privacy suite spanning RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, vendor, risk, breach, retention, consent, cookies, AI systems and training | An all-in-one EU/DACH data responsibility suite organised into Privacy, Risk, Audit & Vendor and AI 'Flows', spanning RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, vendor, risk, breach, deletion, cookie checks and training | Connected GDPR and EU AI Act records - RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk, vendors, data mapping and AI governance - where one approved assessment feeds every downstream record |
| When to choose it | Choose Dastra when its broad modular suite, cookie-consent CMP, integrated training and CNIL fluency match the programme you want to run | Choose caralegal when its broad Flow-based suite, breach and training modules, deletion concepts and published per-entity pricing match the programme you want to run | Choose Acompli when the main problem is keeping evidence, assessments, RoPA, suppliers and risk decisions connected and defensible after approval |
- Best for: EU organisations and external DPOs wanting a broad, didactic GDPR programme (RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, consent, cookies, breach, vendor, AI systems, training) with strong French/CNIL alignment.
- Deployment: Cloud SaaS privacy and governance platform; the suite spans Privacy, AI, Cyber and Cookies offerings, plus a cookie-consent CMP (with a WordPress plugin) and an integrated Dastra Academy training environment.
- Best for: Mid-sized to enterprise EU/DACH and Swiss organisations wanting a broad, German-hosted privacy programme (RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, risk, vendor, breach, deletion, training) accessible to non-legal staff across complex structures.
- Deployment: Cloud SaaS Data Responsibility Platform (private-cloud hosting in Germany); the suite also includes a website cookie check and an eLearning training module, with translation as an add-on.
05Official source signals
What Dastra and caralegal emphasise publicly
This section uses each vendor's own public positioning as the starting point. It is included so customers can see why the two companies may appear in the same shortlist while still solving different problems.
The capability table remains conservative: "Y" means a capability was publicly documented, while "N" means it was not publicly confirmed in the reviewed material.
Dastra official website
Open the official Dastra source used to ground this profile.
Explorecaralegal official website
Open the official caralegal source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Dastra | caralegal |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Dastra positions itself as a European data privacy and governance platform for GDPR, e-Privacy and EU AI Act workflows. | caralegal positions itself as a European Data Responsibility Platform for privacy, risk, vendor and AI governance workflows. |
| Main public signals | Official pages emphasise RoPA, privacy rights, assessments, third-party work, consent and cookie compliance, breach workflows and AI-governance coverage.; Dastra's public positioning is French and CNIL-fluent, with European hosting, certifications and privacy training signals.; Dastra is best compared as a broad EU privacy suite where consent, cookies and training sit alongside core privacy records. | Official positioning groups the suite into Privacy Flow, Risk Flow, Audit & Vendor Flow and AI Flow.; The public lane includes GDPR records, DPIA and DSAR workflows, vendor and audit work, AI governance, breach-related work, training and German hosting signals.; caralegal is best treated as a broad EU/DACH privacy-operations platform rather than a single-purpose Article 30 register. |
| Best-fit buyer | EU organisations and external DPOs wanting a broad, didactic GDPR programme (RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, consent, cookies, breach, vendor, AI systems, training) with strong French/CNIL alignment | Mid-sized to enterprise EU/DACH and Swiss organisations wanting a broad, German-hosted privacy programme (RoPA, DSAR, DPIA, risk, vendor, breach, deletion, training) accessible to non-legal staff across complex structures |
| Buyer verification | Ask Dastra to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask caralegal to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. |
06Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Dastra (2025-2026, sourced)
These sourced updates were researched on 2026-07-05 and are listed separately from the live comparison table so existing profile claims remain unchanged.
Dastra raised €4.3 million in a round led by C4 Ventures and ADNEXUS (announced 27 May 2025), stated to accelerate European expansion and build an AI agent intended to perform compliance tasks autonomously for DPOs; the same announcement states the platform is used by "over 5,000 organizations" and names SNCF, France Télévisions and MAIF as customers (vendor's own claim, not independently audited).
Dastra shipped a "Dastra 2.0" platform update (27 Jan 2026) adding a new project-based "Compliance" module that lets teams import standard templates (GDPR, AI Act cited as examples), run controls/tests, and reuse the same controls across multiple regulatory standards within one project rather than treating each as a separate audit — a multi-framework capability not reflected in the existing profile's GDPR/e-Privacy/AI-Act framing.
Dastra version 2.0.3 (11 May 2026), added vendor-described AI-assisted features: automatic generation of AI-system model sheets from a description or model name, an "AI analysis" function that assesses whether submitted compliance evidence meets test expectations, a workflow-rule template library, and conditional (skip-)logic questionnaire forms — none of these are mentioned in the existing profile.
Dastra's own site now displays a CyberVadis cybersecurity rating (Gold grade, score 908/1000, scorecard covering March 2025–February 2026) and specifies "IAPP Bronze" membership, alongside the ISO 27001/ISO 27701 badges already noted in the existing profile — the CyberVadis certification is not currently listed.
Dastra publishes a dedicated solution page for the UK, stating it helps organisations comply with "the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Data Use and Access Act (DUAA)," including UK Freedom-of-Information (FOI) request handling and reducing "fines from the ICO" — indicating more developed UK-specific messaging than the existing profile's purely "French-rooted/CNIL-fluent" framing suggests, even though Dastra's core regulatory identity remains French/CNIL-centred.
Dastra's homepage now advertises compliance coverage extending to "GDPR, AI Act, NIS2, DORA," and Dastra publishes a DORA-specific third-party-contract audit questionnaire template, broadening its stated regulatory scope beyond the GDPR/e-Privacy/EU AI Act framing in the existing profile (this is vendor messaging; the depth of NIS2/DORA feature support beyond audit templates and blog content was not independently verified in this pass).
Dastra holds a 4-star rating from 28 reviews on Trustpilot, an independent review site not covered in the existing profile; Capterra continues to show no reviews for Dastra as of 2026, consistent with the existing profile's "Capterra and G2 list the product but with few or no reviews" note.
07Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at caralegal (2025-2026, sourced)
These sourced updates were researched on 2026-07-05 and are listed separately from the live comparison table so existing profile claims remain unchanged.
caralegal's current pricing page shows an automated 'AI-based DPA check' now bundled into paid tiers: the Professional plan includes 1 AI-based DPA (data processing agreement) check per year and the Corporate plan includes 2 per year. This automated contract-review feature is not mentioned in the existing capability table or profile text, though vendor materials elsewhere describe DPA checking as AI-based and fully automated.
Independent software-directory listings show caralegal supports roughly 11 third-party integrations, including Microsoft Entra ID, Google Workspace, Jira, Zapier, Asana, monday.com, OneDrive, Google Cloud, SAP LeanIX, Make, and filerskeepers. This integration breadth (notably Entra ID/SSO-adjacent and workflow-tool connections) is not reflected as a distinct line in the existing 20-row capability table.
caralegal's own enterprise solutions page names RWE and ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE as customers, including a quote attributed to ProSiebenSat.1's Group Data Protection Officer citing 'customised solutions for complex organisational structures' as the reason for choosing caralegal. This is a vendor marketing claim (unverified independently) but indicates caralegal is actively courting large multinational/media-sector enterprise accounts, not only SME/mid-market buyers as the existing profile's 'bestFitBuyer' framing might suggest.
caralegal's G2 listing currently shows 4.7/5 based on 7 reviews (with 85% five-star), giving a precise figure for what the existing repo text describes only as 'small sample.' Capterra remains unchanged at 4.5/5 from 17 reviews, confirming that figure is still current.
08Overlap and gaps
Dastra vs caralegal: what the public data actually shows
Feature count is only a starting point. A customer should separate shared coverage from unique public signals, then test whether the vendor can run the required workflow end to end.
| Decision point | Public signal | Buyer interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Shared evidenced coverage | DPIA/PIA assessments; RoPA / Article 30; DSAR / privacy rights; Data mapping; Vendor risk; Privacy risk; AI governance; plus 11 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Dastra publicly confirmed | Consent management | Keep Dastra on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask caralegal whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only caralegal publicly confirmed | Public pricing | Keep caralegal on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Dastra whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Acompli reference column | No Acompli-only edge against both vendors appears in the tracked rows. | Use this as a third reference point where a narrower evidence-first privacy workflow may be preferable to a broader platform. |
09Capability comparison
Dastra vs caralegal: capability by capability
Each row shows Dastra and caralegal marked Y or N based on public documentation, with Acompli shown in the final column for reference.
| Capability | Dastra | caralegal | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | Y | Y | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | Y | Y | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | Y | Y | N |
| Data mapping | Y | Y | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | Y | Y | Y |
| AI governance | Y | Y | Y |
| Consent management | Y | N | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | Y | Y | N |
| Breach/incident management | Y | Y | N |
| Retention management | Y | Y | Y |
| Policy/notice management | Y | Y | N |
| Training module | Y | Y | N |
| Approval workflows | Y | Y | Y |
| Audit trail | Y | Y | Y |
| Role-based access control | Y | Y | Y |
| Multi-entity support | Y | Y | Y |
| Spreadsheet import | Y | Y | Y |
| PDF/CSV/Excel export | Y | Y | Y |
| Public pricing | N | Y | N |
10Where each is stronger
Dastra vs caralegal: the differences that matter
Most rows are shared between Dastra and caralegal; what separates them is the handful of capabilities only one evidences and the specialist focus each is built around.
- Only Dastra (not caralegal) is evidenced for: Consent management.
- Only caralegal (not Dastra) is evidenced for: Public pricing.
- Dastra: Consent and cookie compliance through a built-in CMP with a cookie scanner that identifies the cookies on a site.
- Dastra: An integrated training academy (filmed courses, monthly live sessions, quizzes and certificates) built into the platform.
- caralegal: A packaged breach / incident management module to log and oversee data breaches centrally.
- caralegal: A built-in eLearning / training module to raise employee data-protection awareness.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Dastra or caralegal
A useful comparison should move beyond a product page checklist. Customers should ask each supplier to prove the same live workflow, with the same assumptions, so the difference between platform breadth and usable evidence becomes visible.
Run one real workflow
Ask Dastra and caralegal to process the same example: new activity, assessment, RoPA update, supplier evidence, risk record, review and export.
Check evidence provenance
Confirm whether each important field in Dastra and caralegal has a source, owner, review date and change history, not just a completed form.
Validate exports
Ask both vendors for a regulator-readable export for one legal entity, including controller and processor records where relevant.
Confirm commercial scope
Verify which modules, integrations, service hours, data residency options and support commitments are included in the quoted Dastra or caralegal package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Dastra and caralegal
Weigh Dastra and caralegal on the workflow you must run end to end - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and on how defensibly each one exports what it holds.
- Shortlist Dastra when its broad modular suite, cookie-consent CMP, integrated training and CNIL fluency match the programme you want to run.
- Shortlist caralegal when its broad Flow-based suite, breach and training modules, deletion concepts and published per-entity pricing match the programme you want to run.
- Ask Dastra and caralegal to run one real scenario end to end - a new processing activity, its assessment, the RoPA update, supplier evidence, the privacy risk and an exportable audit trail - rather than a feature-by-feature demo.
13Ireland & UK
Dastra vs caralegal: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Dastra and caralegal are weighed by Irish and UK privacy teams against the same fixed obligation: a record of processing activities under GDPR Article 30 - a controller record under Article 30(1) and a separate processor record under Article 30(2). In Ireland the Data Protection Commission (DPC) publishes Article 30 guidance; in the UK the ICO sets out what UK GDPR requires.
Whichever of Dastra or caralegal an Irish or UK team weighs, the questions are the same: how deep is the Article 30 record, is EU and UK GDPR distinguished on one register, and can each legal entity produce a self-contained export its own supervisory authority can read?
| Article 30 check | Dastra | caralegal | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Dastra to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | Ask caralegal to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | A controller record must stand on its own when a regulator or auditor asks for it. |
| Processor record | Ask Dastra to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Ask caralegal to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Many tools capture controller records more clearly than processor records; customers should verify both. |
| Ireland and UK fit | Ask Dastra how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Ask caralegal how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Irish DPC and UK ICO expectations are close, but entity scope, local law references and export format still matter. |
| Standalone export | Ask Dastra for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | Ask caralegal for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | A defensible record should be readable outside the platform, with enough context to explain the processing activity. |
- Article 30(1) and 30(2) - does each of Dastra and caralegal model controller and processor records separately, scoped by legal entity?
- EU and UK GDPR - can Dastra or caralegal hold both on one register, mapped to what the DPC and ICO expect?
- Export - does Dastra or caralegal let each legal entity produce a stand-alone record its supervisory authority can read without platform access?
Comparison FAQ
Dastra vs caralegal questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Dastra vs Acompli
Compare Dastra directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open modulecaralegal vs Acompli
Compare caralegal directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleAssessments
Run DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with templates, AI support and human approval.
Open moduleRoPA management
Maintain Article 30 records that stay linked to approved assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
Open moduleCompare Dastra and caralegal against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Dastra covers, which caralegal covers, and where each option fits.
Acompli architecture
One governed foundation. Five connected modules.
Imported systems, suppliers, policies, DPIAs and RoPA spreadsheets become the shared evidence model for assessments, risk, records, third-party oversight and data mapping.
- OnboardingImport DPIAs, RoPA spreadsheets, suppliers, systems, policies and documents.
- AssessmentsRun DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with human approval.
- RiskExtract candidate risks from approved evidence and assign treatment plans.
- RoPAMaintain Article 30 records linked to assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
- Third-PartyRecord suppliers once, then reference them across assessments, RoPA, risk and maps.
- Data MappingBuild a living view of systems, suppliers, locations, categories and transfers.
Point tools create records. Acompli connects them.