PPWR software compared: six solution types, 25 vendors, real prices and the five promises you should check

In brief

In two years, the market for PPWR software has grown from zero to 39 vendors in the German-speaking region, and the tools are built for different roles without the vendor websites saying so. Anyone who approaches the selection via a feature list is highly likely to buy a tool for the wrong role.

The price range from real selection processes runs from EUR 4,800 to 84,000 per year. The difference is explained almost entirely by the type of solution, not by quality.

Five promises appear on almost every vendor website, and none of them delivers what the wording suggests: automated EPR reporting, calculated recycling class, automatically generated labelling, annual declaration of conformity and productivity in three days.

Below 30 packaging units and ten suppliers, you usually do not need software. Above that, the question is not whether, but which type.

We are a vendor ourselves. That is stated here at the outset, and at the end the guide says who our tool is not the right choice for.

The market in figures

Matchilla, a platform for software selection processes, has been screening the market weekly since August 2025 and counted 39 providers with a PPWR connection in the DACH region on 18 August 2026. In mid-2025 there were around 30. From the selection processes of the first half of 2026, Matchilla reports a price range of EUR 4,800 to 84,000 per year. This is not a spread around a mean value, but the result of six very different product categories that all appear under the same search term.

Two movements shape the year 2026. The established packaging platforms have extended their tools to include the declaration of conformity and technical documentation; Recyda, for example, presented a PPWR Navigator in June 2026 with templates that, by its own account, were developed with industry initiatives and legal experts, and had already integrated its assessment functions into SAP Responsible Design and Production in November 2025. At the same time, the large ESG suites have retrofitted PPWR as a module; IntegrityNext has explicitly extended its product compliance offering with PPWR functions. In between, specialised tools have emerged that do nothing other than PPWR, and alongside them stand the tools of the dual systems, which cover the producer role.

For buyers this means: the market is mature enough that there is a suitable tool for every situation, and confusing enough that you will not find it without a systematic approach.

Do you even need software?

The honest answer first: not everyone. A business with ten packaging types, two suppliers and a stable product range satisfies the Regulation with a clean spreadsheet, a folder and a good letter to its suppliers. The declaration of conformity is one page under Annex VIII, the technical documentation a folder under Annex VII, and for a small portfolio both can be maintained by hand. How this works is set out in PPWR declaration of conformity: template, mandatory content under Annex VIII; for microenterprises the rule under which the supplier is the manufacturer often applies anyway, see Microenterprises, small businesses and online retail.

Software becomes unavoidable at four points, usually at several of them at once.

When the number of packaging units reaches three digits. Forty items in five packaging formats quickly produce 100 to 200 packaging units, each with its own declaration and its own documentation. Beyond this size the spreadsheet fails not at creation but at maintenance: who issued which version and when, which component is in which unit, and what happens when the film supplier changes the formulation?

When supplier numbers reach double digits. The decisive data, namely material composition, heavy metal values, PFAS evidence and recycled content, sit with the suppliers, not with you. Asking twenty suppliers by email, sorting their answers, following up and sending reminders is a part-time job. Beyond thirty, a full-time one.

When you hold several roles at once. Manufacturer for your own brand, importer for third-party goods, distributor for the pallet. Three roles mean three lists of duties, and in a spreadsheet they blur together.

When 2028 and 2030 have to be factored in. Sorting labels, performance grades, recycled content quotas and empty space rules require data per component that nobody demands today but that should be recorded today. Anyone who files them away in spreadsheet columns will record everything again in 2029.

Rule of thumb from our conversations: below 30 packaging units and below ten suppliers, manual work is enough. Above that, manual work costs more than software, only invisibly.

What PPWR software must deliver

The list of functions can be derived directly from the Regulation. Every solution that wants to be more than a form generator must cover six areas.

Packaging master data at component level. Item, packaging unit and components as three separate levels, because the declaration is issued per packaging type, while the substance limits apply per component, including inks, coatings and adhesives. A component must be created once and be reusable in many units, otherwise you maintain the same folding carton fifty times. Import via CSV or Excel is mandatory, an ERP connection is optional.

Roles and duties per packaging unit. The Regulation assigns roles not per company but per packaging. The software must distinguish, for each unit, whether you are the manufacturer, importer, distributor or authorised representative, map the special cases under Article 21 and derive a list of duties from this. Tools that know one role per tenant are unusable for most companies. The role logic is explained in Manufacturer or producer? Which role your company holds under the PPWR.

Data collection from suppliers. A portal through which suppliers respond without registering themselves, with structured forms instead of free text, with mandatory evidence for substance data, with a status per request and a message history. The best version recognises uploaded test reports and data sheets and proposes the values, so that the human only has to check them. This is the area in which the tools differ most, and it determines the largest part of the working time.

Technical documentation and declaration of conformity. Generate both documents from the captured data, per packaging unit, with the eight mandatory elements under Annex VIII, versioned, with issue date and signatory, and as a bulk action for all units whose data is complete. Where the software only fills in the form without holding the documentation behind it, you have a sheet of paper and not a binder when the authority asks.

EPR registration and volume report. Derive the registration obligations per Member State from the target markets, track the status, and for Germany generate a volume report that complies with the schema of the Central Agency (Packaging Register). There is no interface to the authorities; registration always takes place in the authority's portal.

Retention and evidence. Five years for single-use packaging, ten for reusable, with time stamp, version and assignment to the unit. And the ability, when an authority asks, to produce the documentation for one specific packaging within ten days, not for all of them.

What goes beyond this, and when it pays off. Recyclability assessment, life cycle assessment, design optimisation and artwork approval are not a requirement of the Regulation for the 2026 declaration of conformity. The assessment method for the performance grades will only arrive with the delegated act. But recyclability is not entirely without significance today: under § 26 VerpackDG, the dual systems must structure their system participation fees so that recyclable packaging and the use of recycled content are rewarded, and the Central Agency publishes a minimum standard for this each year until the EU method applies. Anyone who places large volumes of packaging subject to mandatory system participation on the market already saves on fees today with a good assessment. For these companies, the assessment depth of the packaging platforms is hard cash. For an importer of machine parts it is overhead.

The six solution types

The market sorts itself by the origin of the vendors, and that origin determines what the tool is good for.

Specialised PPWR tools. Built for the deadline, lean, rolled out in weeks. Strong on master data, supplier enquiries and document generation, because they do nothing else. Their limit lies where packaging development begins: if you want to assess recyclability according to RecyClass, CEFLEX or the ZSVR minimum standard, you will usually find nothing here but a field for entering the result. Examples: Polygon One, greenable, ppwrconnect, ppwr-doc, dpp-tool.

Packaging platforms with assessment depth. Vendors that were already assessing recyclability before the PPWR and have extended their tools to cover the declaration and EPR. By its own account, Recyda covers assessments in more than 20 countries against standards such as RecyClass, CEFLEX, KIDV and the ZSVR minimum standard, is integrated into SAP Responsible Design and Production and has supplied templates for the declaration and documentation since June 2026. Packa comes from FMCG packaging management and combines specifications, artwork approval, compliance checking, EPR fee calculation and declarations, with AI-supported digitisation of unstructured packaging data from Excel, PDF and ERP exports. Consust (FramesCube) guides you to the role with a decision tree and through to the declaration with a guided process; Packaging Cockpit operates in the same category. These tools are built for brand owners and producers that design their packaging themselves and want to manage fees through recyclability. For importers that collect declarations rather than draw them up, they are overhead.

ESG suites with a PPWR module. Multi-framework platforms for CSRD, EUDR, the Supply Chain Act and the carbon footprint that carry the PPWR as one more module. osapiens, IntegrityNext, cubemos, Coolset, carbmee, VERSO, tanso and Sunhat are among them. Their argument is the one platform for everything: material composition and recyclability, recorded once, feed into the carbon footprint, into ESRS E5 and into the digital product passport. Their price is an implementation project that is disproportionate for a company that only needs the Packaging Regulation. Coolset describes its PPWR module explicitly for importers and distributors, with automated declaration requests to suppliers, and by its own account dispenses with a recyclability assessment at material level. VERSO embeds the PPWR in a supplier and certificate management hub; tanso links packaging data with climate data at product level.

Document and evidence collectors. Tools whose core is the supplier campaign: collecting declarations, test reports and certificates in several languages and assembling technical documentation from them. Certivo is the most visible example, with additional monitoring of PFAS and heavy metals in food contact. EPR reporting and design optimisation are not the focus here.

PIM and master data systems with a PPWR module. Product information systems that carry packaging as a data class and add conformity functions on top. AtroPIM as the open source variant, Trace One and PackIntelX as established vendors. The argument: conformity is a master data problem, and the data should live where all other product data lives. That is true, and it is at the same time the largest implementation project of the six categories.

Tools from the EPR service providers. The dual systems and their intermediaries, such as Lizenzero, Reclay, Landbell or ecosistant, offer portals for participation in a dual system, volume reports and authorised representatives in other member states. They cover the producer role, not the manufacturer role: the declaration of conformity and technical documentation are generally not a topic there. If you only have to register and license, you are in the right place here; if you have to declare, you need a second tool.

Four buyer profiles and what suits them

Four starting positions recur in selection processes. If you recognise yourself in one of them, you have already half determined the type of solution.

The importer or trader. Buys packaged goods or packaging from third parties, produces nothing itself, is the importer for the third-party goods and possibly the manufacturer for the shipping packaging. Needs: collecting, checking and filing declarations; the importer details on the packaging; its own declaration for shipping boxes; the producer role with registration and participation in a dual system. Does not need: recyclability assessment, design tools. Fits: a specialised tool with a good supplier process or an evidence collector, plus an EPR service provider for the target markets.

The filler or brand owner. Fills packaging or has it produced under its own brand, and is therefore the manufacturer for its entire product range. Needs: component-level depth, a supplier portal with mandatory evidence, bulk issuing, a roadmap for 2028 and 2030. Where large volumes of packaging subject to mandatory system participation are involved, also the recyclability assessment for the fees under § 26 VerpackDG. Fits: a specialised tool where the focus is conformity, a packaging platform where the focus is fees and design.

The packaging manufacturer. Manufactures packaging and is the manufacturer for everything it supplies without a customer brand, and through the micro-enterprise rule is also the manufacturer for the own-brand packaging of small customers, often for hundreds at the same time. Needs: bulk issuing per packaging type, customer allocation, provision of the evidence for customers who are manufacturers themselves, recyclability as a selling point. Fits: a packaging platform or a specialised tool with multi-client and customer logic.

The corporate group with ESG reporting. Falls under CSRD, has a CO2 accounting project, possibly a Supply Chain Act programme, and PPWR is one more data requirement on the same suppliers. Needs: one data model for everything, ERP integration, a roles and permissions concept across departments. Fits: an ESG suite or a PIM with a PPWR module, in the knowledge that the roll-out is a project.

Five promises fact-checked

Five claims recur on vendor sites and in comparison guides, claims that are not true when taken at their word. We name no names, because the wording occurs with many vendors and because this is not about vendors, but about your expectations.

"Automated EPR reporting per target market." There is no interface to LUCID or to the registers of other member states. What software can do: aggregate volumes, generate a reporting file, in Germany as XML in the schema of the Central Agency, and track the status. What you do yourself: upload the file in the authority portal and maintain the registration there. Ask in the demo: "Show me how the report reaches the authority." The honest answer is: it does not, you upload it.

"Calculate the recyclability class under the PPWR." The performance grades A, B and C apply from 2030; the Commission will only set the assessment method with the delegated act, which is expected by early 2028. Until then, under the Commission guidance, the conformity assessment for recyclability is not to be carried out. What software can credibly do today: assess against existing systems, such as RecyClass or the ZSVR minimum standard, which is relevant for the fee scaling of the dual systems, and store a declared class. What it cannot do: calculate a class "under the PPWR". Ask: "By which method?" The answer should have a name, and that name should not be "PPWR". Background in Recyclability, recycled content, minimisation and empty space.

"Generate labelling automatically." The harmonised sorting label under Article 12 will come in August 2028 at the earliest, and the Commission will set the pictograms in an implementing act that is still outstanding in September 2026. A tool that produces "PPWR labelling" today produces either the old material numbers under Decision 97/129/EC, which remain permitted until August 2028, or something that does not yet exist in law. What software can deliver today: record the material composition per component in such a way that the labelling follows from it in 2028, and output the identifier and manufacturer details under Article 15 as print data. Details in PPWR labelling obligation: what has applied since 12 August 2026 and what will only come in 2028.

"Declaration of conformity to be submitted annually." The declaration of conformity is issued per packaging type, not annually, and is not submitted anywhere, but kept available for five or ten years respectively. It is reissued when the packaging changes, not when the calendar year changes. A tool that sells an annual declaration cycle confuses it with the volume report. Ask: "What triggers a reissue?" The correct answer: a change to material, supplier, formulation or role.

"Productive in three days." The account is set up in three days, that is true. You are productive once the first declaration of conformity with complete supplier data is in place, and that takes as long as your suppliers need to answer: in our experience four to eight weeks for the first wave. No tool shortens that below the response time of the slowest supplier. What a good tool does: raise the response rate, because the supplier can answer without a login, and make the answers immediately usable. Ask about the average time from kick-off to the first declaration among existing customers, not to the login.

The ten criteria that get lost in demos

Everyone has the feature list. The following points decide whether the tool will still be in use twelve months from now.

1. Role coverage per packaging, not per tenant. Have them show you how the same company is the manufacturer for unit A and the importer for unit B, and what changes in the list of duties. If the vendor asks about your role before the demo starts, that is a warning sign.

2. Components as a level of their own. Can printing ink, varnish and adhesive be components in their own right? The heavy metal limit applies to the unit including these constituents; a tool that only knows the main material checks the wrong object. Details in PFAS and heavy metals in packaging.

3. Supplier portal without mandatory registration. Every hurdle lowers the response rate. A link that works without an account is mandatory. So is the option for the supplier to pass the request on to their own upstream supplier without you having to coordinate it.

4. Mandatory evidence and self-declaration. Can the supplier submit substance information without proof? If so, your documentation will not hold up. A test report or supplier declaration should be a mandatory field, and the supplier should have to confirm that the information is correct.

5. Handling missing data. What does the technical documentation say when a value is missing? Correct: "not recorded". Wrong: an empty field or an estimated value. Have them show you documentation with gaps.

6. No verdict where the method is missing. See the fact check: declared class yes, calculated "PPWR class" no; recycled content target indication yes, conformity verdict no.

7. Bulk issuing with a completeness check. A hundred declarations with one signature, but only for units with complete data. If the bulk action waves incomplete units through as well, it produces a hundred contestable documents.

8. Authority request within ten days. Article 15(10) requires submission within ten days. Have them show you how you export the documentation for a single unit as a package, not as a database extract.

9. Roadmap for 2028 and 2030. Where are material composition with mass fractions, empty space volumes and recycled content source recorded today, and how do they find their way into the sorting label in 2028? A tool that only had 2026 in view will create a replacement project in 2029.

10. Data storage, security, export. Where is the data held, who has access, is there an audit log, is the vendor certified to ISO 27001 or working towards it, and what happens on termination? A complete export of all master data, evidence and documents must be possible at any time. A five-year retention obligation outlasts any software contract.

Provider overview

The table describes the providers visible in September 2026 by category, role focus and the limits that emerge from their public descriptions. We have not tested any of these providers ourselves; the details are based on provider websites, press releases and the comparison guides from AtroPIM, cubemos, Packa and Matchilla. Almost nobody states public list prices.

One pattern stands out: no provider covers all six types, and most companies need two. A specialised tool or a packaging platform for the manufacturer duties, plus an EPR service provider for participation in a dual system and authorised representatives. Anyone looking for both in one place ends up with the ESG suites and pays for the rest of the suite as well.

What PPWR software costs

Three pricing models dominate, and they scale differently.

By packaging units. An annual flat fee for a quota, with tiers above it. Suits companies with a stable portfolio and a fluctuating number of users. The model rewards tidying up: anyone who condenses 300 variants into 120 genuine packaging types pays less.

By users. Common with ESG suites and PIM systems. Suits large organisations, but penalises companies that want to involve purchasing, quality and sales.

By revenue or company size. Found with some suites and EPR service providers. Hardly appropriate for the PPWR, because the effort depends on packaging types and suppliers, not on revenue.

Three configurations worked through. The figures are orders of magnitude taken from public information, the Matchilla range and our own conversations, not quotations.

Internal effort is the largest item in almost every calculation and the least visible one in almost every presentation. Expect two to four weeks for the master data, four to eight weeks of supplier communication up to the first declaration, and the role assignment that nobody can take off your hands.

On the ROI calculation you will read elsewhere. Matchilla publishes an example for a mid-sized company with 200 employees: EUR 25,000 one-off, EUR 18,000 per year, savings of EUR 40,000 to 60,000 per year, break-even after nine to twelve months. The calculation is useful as a way of thinking, but two of its items are ones you should not adopt. "Avoiding fines" is not a saving but a risk you must not take anyway. And "packaging optimisation of up to EUR 20,000" only arises if the tool optimises design and carton sizes, which specialised compliance tools do not do. What remains is the manual effort saved, and for most portfolios above 100 units that is enough to carry the licence of a specialised tool. It is not enough for a suite; for that, the rest of the suite has to be needed.

At Polygon One, the PPWR module starts at EUR 5,500 net per year for up to 60 packaging units, three user accounts, onboarding and legal updates. We price larger portfolios after a conversation, by packaging unit, with no items that only appear in the contract.

Our recommendation

For companies that fill, import or place packaging on the market under their own brand and whose task is conformity under the Regulation, not packaging development, we recommend Polygon One. This is our product, and we justify the recommendation in a way that lets you verify it in the demo.

The role is set per packaging unit. Manufacturer, importer, distributor or authorised representative, plus the switches under Article 21 for own brands and modified packaging and a separate switch for the producer role with target markets. From this, a list of duties is created per unit, showing what is open, what is done and what only arrives in 2028 or 2030.

The data sits at component level. Article, packaging unit and component as three levels, components created once and reused in any number of units, printing ink, varnish and adhesive as separate items. Substance values with a mandatory basis of evidence, PFAS fields only for food contact, immediate feedback on the heavy metal limit value. Import via CSV or Excel, without an ERP project.

Suppliers respond without a login. One link per customer relationship, three ways to respond per item (upload a document, fill in a form, pass it on to the upstream supplier), mandatory proof for substance data, confirmation of accuracy before sending. The platform evaluates uploaded test reports and data sheets using AI and proposes values that a human checks and accepts. Message history and correction approval included.

The documents are created from the data. Technical documentation under Annex VII and declaration of conformity under Annex VIII per unit, individually or as a bulk action for all units with complete data. Missing details are shown explicitly as not recorded, never as an empty field. A cockpit shows the coverage by declarations of conformity and the next sensible step.

The producer role is built in. Target markets per unit control in which Member States the platform displays a registration obligation and tracks the status. For Germany, it generates a volume report as XML from the masses per component, validated against the Central Agency's schema, for upload to LUCID.

Anyone who has both has one platform. Companies that, in addition to packaging, also fall under the Deforestation Regulation because they process wood, cocoa, coffee, rubber or soy work with the same articles, the same suppliers and the same supplier portal in both modules. For sawmills, coffee roasters, chocolate producers and furniture makers, that is the difference between one piece of software and two.

What Polygon One states openly. The platform does not calculate a recyclability class and will not do so before the Commission lays down the method; it stores a declared class. If you want to manage fees via the ZSVR minimum standard, you need a packaging platform for that. Recycled content is recorded and compared against the quota, without a verdict. There is no authority interface, because none exists. And the exemption for recycled glass in the heavy metal limit value is not yet mapped; if you use recycled glass, talk to us.

Who Polygon One is not the right choice for. If you develop packaging and want to assess or optimise recyclability under RecyClass, CEFLEX or the ZSVR minimum standard, or use it for the fees, you are better served by Recyda, Packa or Consust. If you are looking for a platform for CSRD, the Supply Chain Act and carbon footprint and only need PPWR as one building block, you should look at an ESG suite. If you only have to organise participation in a dual system and authorised representatives, you need an EPR service provider and not conformity software. And if you have fewer than 30 packaging units and ten suppliers, you usually do not need any software at all.

The selection process in six steps

1. Take stock before researching vendors. How many packaging units, how many suppliers, which roles, which target markets, which systems hold packaging data today, and how many of the packaging items are subject to mandatory system participation? The last figure determines whether the recyclability assessment is worth the money.

2. Define the buyer profile and solution type, then the long list. The stocktaking leads to one of the four profiles above, and with it to the type. Only then gather three to five vendors within that type.

3. Weight the requirements catalogue. The ten criteria and the feature list, with must-haves and should-haves and a weighting that reflects your role. The catalogue is available for download below, with a sheet for the demo questions.

4. Demo with your own data. Send every vendor twenty real packaging units with components and three real suppliers in advance, and have them show you exactly those. Ask the five questions from the fact check. A demo with sample data says nothing about your data.

5. Pilot with one supplier. Four weeks, a section of the range, one real supplier, one real data request. The response rate and the quality of the first documentation say more than any reference list.

6. Contract with an exit. Data export on termination, price commitment for the tiers you will need in two years, legal updates included, and put in writing what the software does not do. The last point protects both sides.

Download the requirements catalogue

The assessment sheet contains 42 criteria across seven areas, each marked as mandatory or desirable, with a weighting that you adjust to your role, and score columns for four vendors. The evaluation calculates the degree of fulfilment and excludes any vendor that fails a mandatory criterion, regardless of the score. A second sheet contains 14 questions for the demo, including the five from the fact check, with space for the answers from each vendor.

• Download: PPWR software requirements catalogue and demo questions (XLSX)

Frequently asked questions

Do I need PPWR software as a small company?

Below around 30 packaging units and ten suppliers, usually not. A structured spreadsheet, a folder and a good cover letter are enough. Above that, maintenance becomes more expensive than the software, only invisibly so.

What does PPWR software cost?

Drawing on actual selection processes in the first half of 2026, Matchilla reports a range of EUR 4,800 to 84,000 per year. Specialised tools sit in the mid four-figure range for smaller portfolios, packaging platforms start in the high four-figure range, and ESG suites and PIM rollouts are five- to six-figure projects in the first year.

What is the difference between PPWR software and an EPR service provider?

The EPR service provider covers the producer role: participation in a dual system, volume report, authorised representatives. PPWR software covers the manufacturer role: master data, supplier data, technical documentation, declaration of conformity. Most companies need both.

Can software calculate the recyclability class under the PPWR?

No, the method does not exist yet. Software can assess against existing systems such as RecyClass or the ZSVR minimum standard, which is what matters today for the fee scaling of the dual systems, and can store a declared class.

Is there an automatic EPR report to LUCID?

No. There is no interface to the authorities. Software generates a validated XML file that you upload in the portal of the Central Agency (Packaging Register).

Do I need an ERP integration?

Not to get started. Import via CSV or Excel is enough for most portfolios. An integration pays off when the product range changes frequently and the master data would otherwise drift apart.

How do I recognise a tool that is built for my role?

By whether it sets the role per packaging unit and whether the demo works with your own data. A manufacturer needs component depth and bulk issuing, an importer needs the collection and checking of declarations.

How long does implementation take?

The account in days, the first declaration of conformity with complete supplier data in four to eight weeks, because the suppliers have to respond. No tool shortens that below the response time of the slowest supplier.

Why does Polygon One recommend itself?

Because we have built for manufacturers, importers and distributors that have to demonstrate conformity, and because in the same text we say who other tools are better for. Test the recommendation in a demo with your own data.

Sources and status: Regulation (EU) 2025/40, in particular Articles 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39, 44, 45 and 70 as well as Annexes VII and VIII. German Packaging Act Implementation Act (VerpackDG), §§ 26 and 26a. Commission Notice C/2026/3084 (guidance on the PPWR, document C(2026) 3702). Market figures and price range: Matchilla, PPWR software guide, updated 18 August 2026. Provider information: provider websites, press releases from Recyda (3 November 2025, 30 June 2026) and IntegrityNext, comparison guides from AtroPIM (26 June 2026), cubemos (12 August 2026) and Packa (April 2026). The descriptions of the competitors are based on their own presentation, not on our own testing. Polygon One is the provider of one of the solutions compared. This article describes the status as of September 2026 and is no substitute for legal advice.

Photos: Kat von Wood, Luke Heibert, Mapbox, Scott Graham, all via Unsplash.