As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Claude for Work 3/5 and Langdock 4/5 in AI Agents & Assistants. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 0 of the 6 judges pick Claude for Work and 6 pick Langdock. Claude for Work scores higher on 1 of 7 criteria (Admin, identity & access controls). Langdock scores higher on 6 of 7 criteria (Models & processing location, European sovereignty, Agent capabilities & guardrails, plus 3 more). Provenance — Claude for Work: Rest of world; Langdock: EU-Made. Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made.
Langdock holds the wider margins: processing and models 8.2 to 3.7, sovereignty 8.0 to 3.8, agent capabilities 8.0 to 7.0, pricing transparency 7.2 to 6.2, integrations and knowledge 7.0 to 6.7 — six judges lean Langdock on the first three, five on pricing transparency, two on integrations and knowledge. Claude for Work is ahead on admin and access, 7.7 to 7.2, three judges leaning its way, three tying. Data use and training is the only criterion with judges leaning both ways: 7.8 to 8.0, one for Claude for Work, two for Langdock, three ties. Published weighted totals favour Langdock on the five judges with numbers shown, 7.5–7.9 against 5.6–6.8; the customer-service director's row shows none. Sovereignty attributes as they stand: Claude for Work — US legal entity, US-default data residency; Langdock — German legal entity, EU-only data residency; ownership unknown for both.
Choose Claude for Work if
You need enterprise administration depth — single sign-on with domain capture, SCIM provisioning, custom roles with per-connector permission levels — where the table has Claude for Work ahead 7.7 to 7.2 with three judges leaning its way.
Your compliance process requires retention controls with every change tracked in audit logs; the verdict cites these for Claude for Work, while we found no public information on exportable audit logs for Langdock.
Your deciding criterion is data use and training, where the gap is the table's narrowest (7.8 to 8.0) and the bench splits one judge for Claude for Work, two for Langdock, three ties.
You must contract with a US legal entity and accept US-default data residency; the sovereignty attributes list Claude for Work as US jurisdiction with US-default residency.
Choose Langdock if
You need EU-only data residency and a German legal entity; the sovereignty attributes list Langdock as German jurisdiction with EU-only residency, and sovereignty runs 8.0 to 3.8 with six judges leaning Langdock.
Your workloads require EU-only inference by default, data at rest in EU data centres even for global models, and bring-your-own-key or own-cloud or on-premises deployment — processing and models stands at 8.2 to 3.7.
You need human confirmation on agent action nodes; agent capabilities runs 8.0 to 7.0 with six judges leaning Langdock, while Claude for Work's own pages state there is no approval step before a run starts.
Your data protection officer must sign off; their weighted total reads 7.7 for Langdock against 5.6 for Claude for Work.
Procurement needs published pricing clarity; pricing transparency runs 7.2 to 6.2 with five judges leaning Langdock and one tie.
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The Data Protection Officer
Signs the DPA and gets asked where a prompt goes. Wants every model provider named as a subprocessor with its region, training excluded for all of them, retention the company controls, and an EU-only switch that also covers agents and connectors — not just the chat window.
Claude for Work
Langdock
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Data use, training & retention
Claude for Work
The commercial terms state Anthropic may not train models on Customer Content, the DPA is accepted together with those terms, and Enterprise admins get configurable retention for chats, projects and artifacts with permanent deletion and every retention action tracked in the audit log, alongside stated SOC 2 and ISO 27001. However, default retention is indefinite, custom retention is Enterprise-only, and the controls exclude Claude Managed Agents and features that run Claude Code in the cloud — for a buyer asking where a prompt inside an agent run goes, that gap matters. I found no public information on zero-data-retention terms as a general option, though the pages note healthcare customers can sign a BAA with no Zero Data Retention requirement.
Langdock
The terms exclude our content from training not only for Langdock but contractually for every model provider it routes to, and the Article 28 DPA is automatically concluded. Retention is ours to control — an admin-configurable chat retention period, documented deletion behaviour for files across chats, agents and knowledge bases, and deletion no later than 30 days after termination — while Azure models run with zero-data-retention abuse monitoring. Only Microsoft's abuse-monitoring terms are described, and I found no audit trail for deletions, which is what keeps this short of full accountability.
Models & processing location
Claude for Work
The model families are named — Opus, Sonnet, Haiku and Mythos — but the privacy policy states data is transferred to servers in the US or to other countries outside the EEA and the UK, with no EU processing option documented for the service, and the AWS region page points to the Bedrock user guide without listing regions. Anthropic runs its own models, so there is no third-party routing to govern, but I found no public information on an EU-only inference setting, provider exclusion, bring-your-own-key, or deployment in the customer's own cloud for the Work plans.
Langdock
Every model provider I want named — Azure, AWS, Google Cloud, OpenAI Ireland — appears with its region, EU-only inference is the default, and processing outside the EU happens only if we actively choose a global model, with data at rest staying in EU data centres regardless. Bring-your-own-key plus managed, own-cloud and on-premises deployment are documented, and the DPA commits processing to the EU or EEA. I found no public information confirming that the EU-only switch demonstrably covers connector traffic and agent tool calls, not just chat inference.
Admin, identity & access controls
Claude for Work
Enterprise gets SSO/SAML with domain capture, SCIM or JIT provisioning with identity-provider switching documented, custom roles governing capabilities, connectors and which models each role may use, per-group spend limits, audit logs and usage analytics, with retention actions tracked in the audit log. Connector tools can be set to need approval per call, the 'always allow' setting for write-capable tools is off by default, and the Pipedrive connector is documented to respect existing user permissions. I found no public information on audit-log export or streaming to a SIEM, data-loss prevention, or pseudonymised reporting for works-council agreements.
Langdock
SAML 2.0 with any compatible identity provider, SCIM, role-based access control, IP restrictions, and a governance module where admins review, approve, flag or disable agents against EU AI Act and GDPR rule templates — this is genuinely operable by IT. Retrieval mirrors the source system's permissions one-to-one, and usage analytics with CSV and API export can be disabled at workspace level. I found no public information on exportable audit logs or streaming to a SIEM, which is what holds this below the highest marks.
Integrations, connectors & knowledge
Claude for Work
Connectors cover Gmail, Google Drive, Slack and Microsoft 365, remote MCP connectors are supported through a marketplace that includes an official Pipedrive connector with read and write CRM tools over OAuth that respects existing user permissions, and the Claude API plus webhooks and external APIs are documented. I found no public information on how fast or how completely connectors sync, or on how the assistant cites the sources it answers from.
Langdock
The connector story is MCP-first: a curated directory of 79 official remote servers, any custom MCP server connectable with OAuth or API key, MCP Apps rendering interactive interfaces in a sandboxed iframe, A2A protocol support, more than 7,000 apps via Zapier, an open unified API, and agents reachable from Slack, Teams, Excel and Outlook. Integration permissions mirror the source tool one-to-one. I found no public information on sync behaviour, webhooks, or source citations on grounded answers.
Agent capabilities & guardrails
Claude for Work
Managed agents run multi-step workflows in the background with concurrent agents, documented limits (24-hour run lifetime by default, up to 1,000 agents per run), failure retry, and run events on a session event stream, while connector calls can be gated per action at 'needs approval'. Scheduled tasks appear on paid plans. The documentation is candid that there is no approval step before a run starts, and I found no public information on test or evaluation tooling before release, or on monitoring quality and cost per agent.
Langdock
Agents act through integration actions and MCP tools with confirmation flows, a working folder they may write to only with edit access, and workflow action nodes that run only after human confirmation, with approval configurable per run through conditions. The builder publishes versioned drafts with a test conversation beside it, and governance records a pass-or-fail compliance check on every published version with per-agent analytics, costs and history visible. I found no public information on evaluation against test sets before release or on attribution of each action to the person who deployed the agent.
European sovereignty
Claude for Work
EEA, Swiss and UK customers contract with Anthropic Ireland Limited in Dublin, a subprocessor list is published, and standard contractual clauses are the stated transfer safeguard — but the privacy policy states data is transferred to servers in the US or other countries outside the EEA and the UK, and Anthropic's own US models are the inference layer with no EU region documented. I found no public information on EU hosting for the service; arbitration for European customers sitting in Dublin is a small comfort.
Langdock
Langdock GmbH of Berlin is the contracting entity, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt, and every subprocessor is published with its location — the model providers Azure, AWS, Google Cloud and OpenAI Ireland all listed with EU regions, with 14 days' notice and an objection right before any change. EU inference is available, and third-country processing occurs only on our instruction, backed by standard contractual clauses in the DPA. The model providers remain US companies operating EU regions, and Sentry processes error data in the US under the Data Privacy Framework, so this is not sovereign end to end.
Pricing transparency
Claude for Work
Free at $0, Pro at $17 per month with the annual subscription discount ($200 billed up front) or $20 if billed monthly, Max from $100 per month, and Enterprise at $20 per seat per month plus usage billed at API rates with a 20-seat minimum and annual commitment are published, with taxes excluded and rate changes on 30 days' notice. Usage is priced by reference to a separate Model Pricing Page, and I found no public information quantifying usage limits, overage rates, or a price for the Team plan.
Langdock
Seat prices are public — €23.20 for a standard seat and €99.00 for Business Max per user per month excluding VAT, with 20% off annual billing — alongside a governance add-on at €2.80 per user per month until January 2027, workflow tiers from an included 2,500 runs per month to €449.00 per workspace per month with 40,000 runs, and per-token API rates in euros. Minimums and terms are stated, from 1,000 users for custom enterprise pricing to 5,000 seats for own-cloud or on-premises deployment. What no buyer can compute is the fair-use limit in absolute terms or any overage pricing beyond the quotas, and the enterprise tier remains a sales conversation.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
Claude for Work
Langdock
Legal entity
Not determined
Not determined
Ownership
Not determined
Not determined
Data residency
Not determined
Not determined
Subprocessors
Not determined
Not determined
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.
As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Langdock higher: 4/5 against 3/5. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 0 of the 6 judges pick Claude for Work and 6 pick Langdock. Which one fits depends on the criteria that matter to you; the table on this page shows both side by side, and each judge’s reading has its own page. Both were scored by the same AI bench under the same rubric, from public evidence only, as the methodology describes.
Is Claude for Work or Langdock European?
Claude for Work is not European by provenance (Rest of world). Langdock is European (EU-Made). Provenance is read from each company’s own legal pages: who builds it and who owns it.
Where do Claude for Work and Langdock store customer data?
Per the vendors’ own pages as captured — Claude for Work: its pages as captured do not say. Langdock: Default not stated; pages mention Europe.
Do Claude for Work and Langdock have a free plan?
As of 28 Oct 2026, Claude for Work’s own pages state a free plan; Langdock’s pages as captured do not. Each product page links the pricing page it was read from.