The one comparison where we cannot play the EU card

Starting with what this page cannot claim

On most comparison pages here, a good part of the argument is jurisdiction: an EU company on EU infrastructure is a different proposition from a US or Australian company offering an EU region.

That argument does not work against Clustdoc. They are a French company. We are a Croatian one. Both sit squarely inside EU law, and a data protection officer will be satisfied by either on that axis. If you came here hoping for a reason to prefer us on GDPR grounds, there isn't a structural one, and pretending otherwise would be the kind of claim this site tries not to make.

Compare the specifics instead: where files are stored, which sub-processors are involved, what the DPA says. Droplana stores everything on Hetzner infrastructure in Germany and offers a DPA on all plans, including the free one. Ask Clustdoc for theirs and read both.

So the decision is a product decision, which is a healthier place for it to be.

Process versus place

Clustdoc is an onboarding platform. The mental model is a pipeline: an applicant arrives, fills in forms, uploads documents, passes verification steps, gets reviewed and approved, and comes out the other end onboarded. You design that pipeline. The product's value is in the structure it imposes.

Droplana has no pipeline. There is a client, and there is their portal, and it holds documents going both ways for as long as the relationship lasts. The checklist says what is outstanding. Files have a status and a comment thread. PDFs can be signed in the browser. That is the entire model.

The useful question is where your pain sits on the timeline.

If it is concentrated at the start - taking on new clients, running applications, collecting a structured pack with verification before anyone can proceed - that is onboarding, and an onboarding platform will serve you better than a portal.

If the intake is comparatively simple but the traffic afterwards never stops, the pipeline finishes and leaves you where you started: emailing documents back and forth for the next four years. That is the part Droplana is built for. For the full picture on what a client portal is and how to evaluate one, see our client portal guide.

Plenty of firms genuinely have both problems. It is worth being honest with yourself about which one is costing you more hours.

Side-by-side

Clustdoc's plans and features change. Check clustdoc.com rather than trusting a comparison page.

Complexity is a cost, not just a capability

This is the argument that matters between these two, and it cuts both ways.

A workflow engine is worth its complexity when you have a process worth encoding: a repeatable, multi-step intake where the steps genuinely differ, where somebody reviews and approves, where a missing verification must block progress. Firms in that position are underserved by simple tools and should buy the platform.

A workflow engine is a liability when you do not. Someone has to design the process, maintain it as it changes, and explain it to whoever joins next. If the true shape of your work is "I need these six documents from this client, and then I send them three back," a pipeline is machinery around a task that did not need machinery.

Droplana's honest position is the second case. It sets up in minutes because there is nothing to configure. That is the direct consequence of not having the features Clustdoc has, which is a trade rather than a win.

What Droplana does not do

• No workflow builder, no conditional logic, no approval routing.
• No custom forms. Documents, not structured answers.
• No identity verification beyond the login itself.
• No integrations and no public API. Documents stay in the portal.
• Logo only, not full branding. Your logo replaces ours in the portal header, on your own subdomain - no accent colour, no custom domain.
• No due dates on checklist items. Reminders run on inactivity.
• Not a qualified e-signature provider. In-browser signing records who signed, when, from what IP and with which login, keeps the original alongside the signed copy, and gives each signature a public verification page with a file-hash check. It is not certificate-based or qualified and we do not describe it as tamper-proof.

Who should pick which

Pick Clustdoc if: your bottleneck is structured onboarding rather than ongoing exchange; you need forms, verification steps and staged approvals; different applicant types need different routes through the process; or you are handling applications rather than servicing long-running clients.

Pick Droplana if: intake is straightforward but the document traffic afterwards is relentless; you want one permanent place per client instead of a process that completes and closes; you want zero configuration and to be working the same afternoon; or your clients are the kind who will abandon anything that asks them to create an account.

Both are EU-based, so choose on the shape of the work rather than on the flag.

For what the ongoing per-client structure looks like in practice, see the accounting practices page, the legal page or the mortgage and credit brokers page.

Check our simple pricing (or start free)

All plans include document checklists, file comments and in-browser PDF signing.
Your logo, EU hosting, encryption and data export are included too.
No per-client fees, setup fees or automatic overage charges. Prices exclude applicable tax.

Related comparisons

Other document collection tools are compared in Droplana vs Content Snare, Droplana vs FileInvite and Droplana vs File Request Pro.