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 Skeptic
Has read "European AI" on a wrapper that sends every prompt to a US model, "agents" that are saved prompts, and "we never train on your data" with no word on the model provider behind it. Asks which model answers, where it runs, what it may do unsupervised, and what a thousand seats cost.
Claude for Work
Langdock
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Data use, training & retention
Claude for Work
The commercial terms bar training on Customer Content and a DPA is accepted with those terms, Enterprise admins can set retention from a 30-day floor with permanent deletion and audit logging, and SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are stated. It stops short of full accounting: retention is indefinite by default, the controls exclude Claude Design, Claude Tag, Claude Managed Agents and features running Claude Code in the cloud, and the privacy policy says safety-flagged conversations keep being used for model improvement even after an opt-out.
Langdock
The binding terms state that neither Langdock nor any model provider it engages may train on customer content, the DPA is auto-concluded with deletion no later than 30 days after termination, and admins can set the chat retention period, with per-object deletion behaviour documented in the help pages. Zero-data-retention is evidenced for the Azure-hosted models' abuse monitoring, but I found no public information on abuse-monitoring or zero-retention terms for the OpenAI, Google or AWS models, nor an audit trail for deletions — the published SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certificates lift this above a contract-only story, but not to the top.
Models & processing location
Claude for Work
The models are named (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, Mythos) and the vendor runs them itself, but the privacy policy states personal data is transferred to servers in the US, we found no EU processing option for this product, and the Amazon Bedrock regions page captured here lists no specific regions. A buyer wanting inference pinned to the EU finds nothing to hold on to.
Langdock
Forty-plus models are reachable through one API with public per-token prices, EU-only processing is the default and non-EU inference happens only when an admin actively selects a model with global deployment, and bring-your-own-key, single-tenant, own-cloud and on-prem deployments are documented with seat minimums. The residency commitment sits in the DPA — processing generally within the EU or EEA — rather than only on a marketing page, and even global models keep data at rest in EU data centres. I found no public information listing the inference region for every individual model, or on open-weight or self-hosted models, which is what keeps this off the top step.
Admin, identity & access controls
Claude for Work
SAML SSO with domain capture, SCIM and JIT provisioning, custom roles governing models, capabilities and connectors per group, connector calls set to need approval by default for new roles, and audit logs on Enterprise — the Pipedrive connector even respects source permissions. We found no public information on DLP policies, SIEM streaming of logs, or usage reporting that can be pseudonymised, which is what keeps a regulated buyer from the top rung.
Langdock
SAML 2.0 with any compatible identity provider, SCIM, role-based access control, IP restrictions, mirrored source-tool permissions in integrations, workspace-toggleable analytics with CSV and API usage export, and a governance module that reviews, approves, flags or disables agents with automated compliance checks on every agent update — that is a real admin surface. I found no public information on exportable audit logs, DLP or content-filter policies, or streaming logs to a SIEM, which is what a regulated IT department will ask for at a thousand seats.
Integrations, connectors & knowledge
Claude for Work
Connectors to Gmail, Google Drive, Slack and Microsoft 365, an official Pipedrive MCP connector with 79 read-and-write tools behind OAuth that respects existing user permissions, plus remote MCP, webhooks and a documented API. We found no public information on sync speed or completeness, and none on how answers cite their sources — the two things that decide whether this is a knowledge layer or a file drawer.
Langdock
The MCP support is unusually deep: a directory of 79 officially operated remote servers, connection of any custom MCP server with OAuth or API-key authentication, MCP apps rendered in a sandboxed iframe with confirmation gates and loggable JSON-RPC, plus the A2A protocol, Zapier with 7,000 apps, Slack and Teams, Excel and Outlook add-ins, and a documented API priced per token. I found no public information on connector sync behaviour or frequency, on source citations for grounded answers, or on webhooks for embedding assistants in other tools.
Agent capabilities & guardrails
Claude for Work
Managed agent runs fan out with documented limits (up to 1,000 agents per run, 64 threads, 24-hour default lifetime), a retry on failure, event-stream logging, budget controls and scoped connector permissions — and the vendor candidly states there is no approval step before a run starts. We found no public information on test or evaluation tooling, versioning or staged rollout, so I will not call these production-grade on the evidence.
Langdock
Agents run multi-step workflows of up to 2,000 steps with action nodes gated by human confirmation, approve/reject/form user-input nodes, conditional approvals so only some runs need a person, a workflow monitor for pending steps, and a builder with a test toggle and published versions with drafts in between; governance adds per-agent costs, history and pass/fail compliance checks on each new version. I found no public information on evaluation against test sets, staged rollout, or a vendor statement of what agents must not be trusted with — the terms disclaim output accuracy and bar AI-Act high-risk uses, which is not the same as an operator's warning.
European sovereignty
Claude for Work
EEA, Swiss and UK customers contract with Anthropic Ireland in Dublin and arbitrate there, but the parent is the US public benefit corporation, personal data is stated to be transferred to US servers or countries outside the EEA, and the model provider is that same US company with no EU inference documented. SCCs and a pointer to a published subprocessor list are the whole safeguard story; that is a compliance wrapper, not sovereignty.
Langdock
The contracting entity is Langdock GmbH of Berlin under German law with exclusive jurisdiction in Berlin, data is hosted on Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt with the EU Data Boundary enabled, and the published subprocessor list names every model provider with location — OpenAI Ireland, Google Cloud, AWS and Azure, all EU — plus Sentry in the US for error tracking under the Data Privacy Framework and contractual clauses; the DPA confines third-country transfers to explicit customer instruction. I found no public information on ownership or a parent company, and opting into global models routes inference to US data zones, so this is a well-evidenced EU setup, not sovereignty end to end.
Pricing transparency
Claude for Work
Seat prices are public — Free at $0, Pro at $17 per month on annual subscription or $20 monthly, Max from $100 per month, Enterprise at $20 per seat per month plus usage billed at API rates with a 20-seat minimum and annual commitment. But usage limits are only relative ("Choose 5x or 20x more usage than Pro"), the API rates live on a separate Model Pricing Page, and we found no overage rates — so a year's real cost is not computable from the pages captured here.
Langdock
The public numbers are specific: €23.20 per user per month for a Standard seat and €99.00 for a seat with five times the usage, €449.00 per workspace per month for 40,000 workflow runs, €2.80 per user per month for the governance add-on after its free period, per-token API rates, a 20% annual discount, and contract terms covering pro-rata seat additions, renewal at list price and 14-day termination notice. What blocks a full annual computation: the fair-use quantities behind the seat tiers are referenced but not shown, and single-tenant, own-cloud, on-prem and enterprise pricing is contact-us from 1,000 seats up.
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.