Editorial standards
TechPeak Solutions GmbH publishes comparisons, buying guidance, and implementation notes on enterprise software. This page explains how that content is produced, what we disclose about commercial interests, and how readers can judge whether a piece is worth relying on.
First question
Where did this claim come from — vendor documentation, our own implementation work, or neither?
Second question
Who benefits if the reader believes it, and is that interest disclosed where the claim sits?
If either is unclear
Treat the piece as a starting point. Email us the page and the statement, and we will review it against the vendor's records and our own.
Editorial register
Our editorial content covers platform evaluations, migration and integration practice, and buying questions in the German enterprise market. We write about software we implement or distribute, and we also write about platforms we have no commercial relationship with, because buyers need to understand the whole stack.
We describe how products behave in real deployments — the modules that carry the work, the integrations they need, and where the configuration cost lands. We say which version the description reflects, because a platform's behaviour changes between releases.
Cut-overs, master data, hybrid coexistence, and the compliance questions that determine where a workload can legally sit. These pieces come from work we or a partner team have actually run — a customer migration to a new finance platform, a shared-service cut-over that stopped overnight processing for a week, a data-residency constraint that eliminated an otherwise preferred vendor. Where a claim depends on a specific product behaviour, we prefer the vendor's own documentation over a secondary summary and we link or name the source in the text.
Licence models, total cost structures, integration effort, and the questions a German mid-market IT department should put to a vendor before signing. No scored ranking of vendors — the premise of a universal ranking rarely survives contact with a specific buyer's constraints.
No scored ranking of vendors. No topics where we have no implementation experience to draw on. No performance benchmarks we did not run. No customer outcome statistics we cannot verify against the engagement they came from.
Method in four stages
Source discipline
Platform descriptions are based on vendor documentation, publicly available product information, and our own implementation work. Where a claim depends on a specific product behaviour, we prefer the vendor's own documentation over a secondary summary. We do not cite anonymous industry surveys as evidence for a factual claim.
A filter you can apply
That includes ours. We develop and sell software, and we distribute and implement platforms from other vendors. We disclose it on this page and, where a piece discusses a product we sell or implement, in the piece itself. The disclosure is what lets you apply the right discount. Buyers increasingly cannot tell vendor content from independent research — the incentives are usually hidden. Publishing the method, the sources, and the commercial interests takes a page and a maintenance habit. The alternative is content that asks to be trusted without offering a way to check it.
How to read a comparison
Assume the publisher has an interest in the answer, including us. Ask which platforms are being paid for and which are being described from arms-length experience.
How to read a benchmark
We do not publish performance benchmarks unless we ran them, and we do not publish customer outcome statistics we cannot verify. Ask who ran the test and on what hardware.
How to read an outcome
Outcomes in our content come from specific engagements. They are examples, not projections. Your volumes, integrations and constraints determine what you will see.
How to read an update
Where a piece reflects a specific version or a point in time, we say so in the text. Material corrections are noted in the text rather than edited silently.
Reviewer qualifications and limits
Our content is written by people who work on enterprise software implementations, with input from colleagues on the integration and compliance sides. We do not hold ourselves out as auditors or as licensed advisors, and nothing on this site constitutes legal or regulatory advice. For decisions with legal consequences, consult your own counsel alongside any vendor material.
We do not test every product on the market, and we do not present our content as a substitute for your own technical evaluation. Treat our work as informed analysis, not as a certified assessment. If you find an error, email us at [email protected] with the page and the specific statement — we will review it against the vendor's documentation and our own records, and correct it if we agree.
Found a claim that does not hold up? Tell us the page and the statement — we will review it against the vendor's documentation and our own records.
