As of 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Collaboard 3.5/5 and Conceptboard 3/5 in Online Whiteboard. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 6 of the 6 judges pick Collaboard and 0 pick Conceptboard. Collaboard scores higher on 4 of 7 criteria (Sharing, permissions & administration, Canvas, templates & content, Integrations, import & export, plus 1 more). Conceptboard scores higher on 2 of 7 criteria (Security, AI controls & deployment and Pricing transparency). Provenance — Collaboard: UK / wider Europe; Conceptboard: EU-Made. Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made.
Collaboard is ahead on canvas and content (6.3 versus 4.5), integrations and export (6.0 versus 4.3) and access and administration (6.8 versus 4.8) — six judges lean Collaboard and zero lean Conceptboard on those criteria — and on facilitation (6.2 versus 5.8), which leans 2 to 0 with four ties. Conceptboard is ahead on security and deployment (6.5 versus 6.0; three lean its way, three tie) and pricing transparency (6.2 versus 5.7; two leans to Collaboard's one, three ties). Sovereignty ties at 8.0 on six tied judges. Conceptboard's pricing score rests on published tiers and free-plan limits set against 'additional fee' add-ons; Collaboard's 5.7 reflects 'Custom pricing' on the tier carrying single sign-on and self-hosting, and captured pages giving different figures for currency. Judge weightings give 6.3 to 5.3 (workshop facilitator) and 6.7 to 6.4 (works-council member). The leans differ by criterion; that split is the answer.
Choose Collaboard if
You need SCIM provisioning documented in depth and tenant-wide audit logs with stated retention: access and administration runs 6.8 to 4.8, with six judges leaning Collaboard.
Your boards depend on canvas basics such as sticky notes, freehand drawing and connectors: canvas and content runs 6.3 to 4.5 with six judges leaning Collaboard.
You must export board content in named formats or integrate through a documented API rather than a promise of full export with no formats named: integrations and export leans six to zero for Collaboard.
You run facilitated workshops: facilitation sits at 6.2 versus 5.8, though only two judges lean Collaboard and four tie.
Choose Conceptboard if
Your security review requires certifications: Conceptboard's verdict lists ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018, while the bench found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2 for Collaboard.
You need published tier prices and concrete free-plan limits for budgeting, rather than 'Custom pricing' on the tier carrying single sign-on and self-hosting: pricing transparency leans 2 to 1 toward Conceptboard (6.2 versus 5.7).
You must contract with a German entity and host in Germany on named infrastructure — Conceptboard Cloud Service GmbH of Halle (Saale), IONOS and AWS in the Frankfurt region — noting sovereignty ties at 8.0.
Your team weighs security and deployment heaviest: three judges lean Conceptboard and zero lean Collaboard (6.5 versus 6.0).
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The Microsoft 365 Admin
Runs Microsoft 365 and Teams for a machine builder with 2,400 staff and found 600 free whiteboard accounts on company addresses, boards shared publicly by link among them. Has to decide between the whiteboard that comes with Teams and a licensed one. Wants single sign-on, SCIM, domain capture of the existing accounts, sharing rules set once for everyone, audit logs in the SIEM, retention rules, and an AI that can be switched off until legal has read the terms.
Collaboard
This judge's pick
Conceptboard
Criterion by criterion
Canvas, templates & content
Collaboard
An infinite canvas with sticky notes, five digital pens, shapes, mind maps, tables, documents and multimedia is described, alongside a template library of over 250 English and over 350 German templates and organization-wide templates that owners and managers create, categorise and lock. We found no public information on search across all boards or documented object limits for very large boards, and while Collaboard AI is named, the pages we read state nothing about its data use. Enough canvas for our workshops, but the AI question goes to legal before anything is switched on.
Conceptboard
The template story is genuinely strong for my users: a pre-built library for workshops and retrospectives, team templates on the higher plans, templates I can adapt to the organisation, files from Google Drive, OneDrive and Dropbox on the board, plus kanban, backlogs and Gantt-style timelines with task management. But the captured pages say almost nothing about the canvas itself — we found no public information on sticky notes, freehand drawing or pen input, an infinite canvas, frames, search across boards, or any AI that clusters or summarises — so I cannot confirm the fundamentals I would be migrating people onto. Documented limits (100 objects per board on the free plan, unlimited on paid) are the only scale statement offered.
Workshop facilitation & participation
Collaboard
Guests edit without an account with per-tier limits stated (up to 20 on Basic, unlimited on Advanced), the board runs inside Teams and Webex, and the help pages document voting in detail: anonymous votes and star ratings, a timer visible to all participants, archived results, and the facilitator choosing which results to share on the board. We found no public information on an anonymous mode for brainstorming notes, breakout areas, a session agenda, or an accessibility statement. For the Teams-run sessions I book weekly, the stated participant limits per plan are what I can actually plan against.
Conceptboard
Live moderation to guide the audience through content, a timer, voting, presenting section by section, guest contributors with temporary access for externals, and the board running inside Microsoft Teams and Webex — that covers most of running a session from our Teams calls. An external audit by Materna in July 2025 against EN 301 549 and BITV 2.0 found the application partially compliant (not all PDFs accessible, no templates marked accessible), which is more accessibility evidence than most vendors publish. We found no public information on anonymous or private brainstorming modes, breakout areas, participant limits per session, or voting results export.
Integrations, import & export
Collaboard
Named integrations cover Teams, Webex, Confluence, Jira, Nextcloud and Rocket.Chat plus a public API with user-bound keys and expiry dates, and imports from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard are documented down to the object mapping, with sticky notes, text, shapes, images and lines remaining editable after import. We found no public information on a two-way Jira sync, webhooks, CSV export of notes, or an editable export format; the Miro path is a vector-PDF import and kanban boards and mind maps arrive as images to be rebuilt. That the Teams integration also works on-premises is the detail that matters to us.
Conceptboard
Teams, Webex, Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox and Confluence embedding are named, and a Jira integration reflects tickets and status directly on the board — workable for a Microsoft estate, though the Jira link is not described as a two-way sync. Export is described only as the option to fully export or delete my data, either automatically or on request, with no format named, and the API appears only as a passing mention of programmatic access in the terms of use. We found no public information on Slack or Zoom apps, PDF, image or CSV export formats, imports from other whiteboards, webhooks, or a documented REST API.
Sharing, permissions & administration
Collaboard
SCIM is documented in full for users and groups with licenses assigned by group, single sign-on with SAML and OAuth2 is stated, and centrally set security flags — disabling guest invitations, requiring passwords on shared projects, separate link expiry for registered users and guests — take effect immediately for everyone in the tenant including connected free users. Audit logs cover the whole tenant, export as CSV with user, IP and action, and are kept 90 days on the global and Swiss environments or 365 days on the German one. We found no public information on domain capture for existing free accounts on our company addresses, content retention and legal hold, classification labels, or board transfer when someone leaves.
Conceptboard
Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 and OAuth 2.0 is offered (shown as an additional fee, with Entra ID explicitly named among the identity providers for the self-hosted edition), permissions are role-based down to individual files, boards and projects, guest contributors are tiered, and audit logs plus advanced admin controls arrive with the Corporate plan. What I need to absorb our 600 shadow accounts is not on these pages: we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, domain capture of existing accounts, centrally enforced sharing rules such as banning public links, exporting audit logs to a SIEM, retention rules or legal hold. Audit log retention of up to 180 days appears in the privacy policy, which is a start but not an administration story.
Security, AI controls & deployment
Collaboard
TLS in transit and 256-bit AES at rest are stated, all user data is deleted when the contract ends, and functions can be activated or deactivated centrally according to data protection regulations with those changes appearing in the audit log. The deployment story is the strongest part: a virtual appliance installed in hours, air-gapped environments, government clouds and compatibility with Kubernetes, OpenShift or Proxmox. We found no public information naming which AI providers process board content, stating that customer boards do not train AI models, on data loss prevention, or on what managers can see of individual activity — exactly the answers legal needs before any AI feature is enabled.
Conceptboard
Encryption is stated concretely (TLS 1.2 with 256-bit AES GCM, elliptic curve cryptography and forward secrecy in transit; symmetric AES256 at rest), full deletion of data is offered with stated log retention periods, penetration tests run under a bug bounty programme with a summary report available on request, and deployment is the strong suit — a dedicated server option and a self-hosted, fully air-gapped Data Center Edition delivered as a Kubernetes bundle with customer-controlled updates. However, we found no public information on customer-managed encryption keys, data loss prevention, or any AI features whatsoever — so I have nothing to evaluate against our rule that AI stays switched off until legal has read the terms, and no statement on whether board content trains models.
European sovereignty
Collaboard
The contracting entity is IBV in Bonstetten, Switzerland, with a registered German office in Lörrach, and the published data processing agreement lists subprocessors with street addresses: Microsoft Azure in the Netherlands and Switzerland, Open Telekom Cloud in Bonn, Flowmailer in Rotterdam for German and Swiss hosting, with contract data processed exclusively in the EU, EEA or Switzerland. HubSpot and Google Analytics are excluded from the German and Swiss environments, though SendGrid in the United States handles email on the global one, and German or Swiss hosting is offered only on the Advanced and Enterprise tiers. We found no public information on security certifications, but the documented on-premises edition that keeps every board on our own servers is the sovereign option our factory data can rest on.
Conceptboard
The contracting entity is Conceptboard Cloud Service GmbH in Halle (Saale), registered at Amtsgericht Stendal, with German law governing, the software developed in Germany, boards hosted in German data centres on named infrastructure (IONOS and AWS in the Frankfurt region, with IONOS CLOUD or STACKIT as choices), a data processing agreement linked in the legal footer, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 stated, and a documented on-premises edition that keeps every board on our own servers. The privacy policy lists subprocessors by name and discloses third-country providers such as Vimeo, Meta, Google, Twitter/X and YouTube with EU Standard Contractual Clauses or adequacy decisions as the safeguard, and self-hosted Matomo with truncated IPs for analytics. That is a properly evidenced European chain — the third-country website-side providers with stated safeguards are what keeps it shy of an end-to-end European one.
Pricing transparency
Collaboard
The tiers are public with their per-user prices — Basic at $6/user per month billed yearly and Advanced at $11.50/user per month billed yearly — plus free-plan limits of up to 3 whiteboards and 5 participants per board, and stated terms: annual contracts with 1 month's notice, automatic renewal, prices exclusive of VAT. The pricing page shows these amounts in dollars while the terms state that all prices are in euro, and everything we would need — single sign-on, SCIM, audit logs, self-hosting, German hosting at an unstated additional charge — sits in the Enterprise tier at custom pricing. I cannot compute the annual cost for 2,400 staff from the public pages, so it is a sales call.
Conceptboard
Starter at 5€ / user / month, Advanced from 10€ / user / month on a 12-month contract for 10+ users, Corporate & Government from 14€ / user / month on 24 months for 100+ users, free-plan limits spelled out (3 active boards, 100 objects per board, 250 MB storage), and VAT treatment, monthly-versus-yearly billing, auto-renewal, the 90-day notice period and even the yearly inflation adjustment are all public. What blocks a full cost computation: single sign-on is listed only as an additional fee with no amount, the IONOS and STACKIT hosting options carry unspecified additional fees, Special Plans are on request, the self-hosted Data Center Edition has no public price, and how guest contributors are counted against licences is not explained.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
Collaboard
Conceptboard
Legal entity
Not determined
Not determined
Hosting location
Not determined
Not determined
Hosting options
Not determined
Not determined
Open source
Not determined
Not determined
Data processing agreement
Not determined
Not determined
Transfer impact assessment
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 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Collaboard higher: 3.5/5 against 3/5. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 6 of the 6 judges pick Collaboard and 0 pick Conceptboard. 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 Collaboard or Conceptboard European?
Collaboard is European (UK / wider Europe). Conceptboard is European (EU-Made). Provenance is read from each company’s own legal pages: who builds it and who owns it.
Where do Collaboard and Conceptboard store customer data?
Per the vendors’ own pages as captured — Collaboard: its pages as captured do not say. Conceptboard: Default not stated; pages mention Germany.
Do Collaboard and Conceptboard have a free plan?
As of 1 Nov 2026, both vendors’ own pages state a free plan. Each product page links the pricing page it was read from.