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 Product Team Lead
Leads three product teams at a logistics software company in Hamburg, with developers in Poland and Portugal. The board is where story maps, quarterly planning, architecture sketches and retrospectives happen, and the outcome has to land in Jira without anyone retyping it. Wants diagrams and sticky notes on one board, a two-way sync with the tickets, an API for the team's own automation, and an export that still makes sense when the company switches tools.
Collaboard
This judge's pick
Conceptboard
Criterion by criterion
Canvas, templates & content
Collaboard
The infinitely large canvas with sticky notes, five digital pens, shapes, tables, mind maps and embedded documents, images, video and audio covers what my teams sketch architecture and story maps on, and the template library (over 250 English, over 350 German) with organisation-wide templates, categories and favourites is genuinely centrally managed. What holds it back: we found no public information on search across boards, on documented object limits for large boards, or on AI that clusters or summarises notes — the only AI actions shown in the audit trail are image background removal and sticky note detection.
Conceptboard
Templates for workshops and retrospectives with a pre-built library and team templates, kanban, backlogs, sprint planning, timelines and Gantt-style views, presentation sections, and files embedded from Google Drive and OneDrive — the captured pages describe a working planning board, with concrete free limits of three active boards and one hundred objects. What my teams would still need to verify: we found no public information on sticky notes, drawing tools, shapes and connectors, mind maps, tables, search across boards, or any AI that clusters or summarises.
Workshop facilitation & participation
Collaboard
Guests edit without an account, there is a timer, anonymous voting with archived results, and the attract-attention and presentation modes bring everyone to the facilitator's view — a solid retrospective kit, documented step by step for the voting flow. Boards run inside Teams and Webex, participant limits are stated per plan, and admins can disable guest invitations or enforce guest passwords tenant-wide. We found no public information on breakout areas, a session agenda, an anonymous mode for sticky notes, or an accessibility statement for participants.
Conceptboard
Live moderation, a timer and voting are named, guests get temporary external access from the Starter tier up, presentations run section by section with one click, and the board works inside Microsoft Teams and Webex calls. An accessibility statement audited by Materna in July 2025 against EN 301 549 and BITV 2.0 is published, though it reports partial compliance with no templates marked accessible. We found no public information on anonymous or private note modes, breakout areas, session agendas, stated participant limits, or object locking.
Integrations, import & export
Collaboard
The named set — Teams, Webex, Pexip, Nextcloud, Rocket.Chat, Jira, Confluence, an MCP server and a public API with expiring keys — plus an unusually detailed Miro import (with an honest object-mapping table) is a good start for migrating off another board. But for my teams the Jira side is documented only as embeddable boards and importable issues: we found no public information on a two-way sync that keeps cards and issues aligned, and none on webhooks, a CSV export of notes, or an export in an editable open format.
Conceptboard
Jira tickets, statuses and documentation are integrated directly on the board, boards embed into Confluence via iFrame, and Microsoft Teams, Webex, Google Drive, Dropbox and OneDrive are named — the connections my teams in Poland and Portugal would actually use. What the pages do not establish: the Jira link is described as reflecting content on the board rather than a two-way sync keeping cards and issues aligned, an API is mentioned in passing but not documented, full data export is promised with no formats named, and we found no public information on webhooks, imports from other whiteboards, or an app marketplace.
Sharing, permissions & administration
Collaboard
Board roles (owner, moderator, editor, reader), password-protected and time-limited links, SCIM with documented endpoints and licence-group assignment, and a tenant-wide audit log exportable as CSV with 365-day retention in the German environment give my admins most of what they need. Central sharing policies — disabling email invitations, enforcing passwords for guests, disabling API keys — apply immediately to everyone in the tenant. We found no public information on domain capture of existing accounts, content retention or legal hold, or how a person's boards are transferred when they leave.
Conceptboard
Individual access rights per file, board and project with role-based permissions are stated, SAML 2.0 single sign-on is offered for an additional fee, guest contributors get temporary external access, and audit logs plus advanced admin controls arrive at the Corporate tier. We found no public information on link sharing with expiry or password, SCIM provisioning, domain capture, centrally set sharing policies, retention rules, or what happens to boards when a person leaves.
Security, AI controls & deployment
Collaboard
The deployment story is the strongest part: on-premises including air-gapped, private cloud, government clouds, a virtual appliance compatible with Kubernetes, OpenShift or Proxmox, plus TLS in transit, 256-bit AES at rest and a Confidential Cloud with encryption during processing. On AI governance we found no public information on which providers process board content, on a statement that customer content does not train AI models, or on a works-council statement; deletion of user data on termination is stated but without a period, and no customer-managed keys are described.
Conceptboard
Encryption in transit (TLS 1.2 with AES-256 GCM and forward secrecy) and at rest, two-factor authentication, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 recertified in March 2025, and a bug bounty with automated and manual penetration tests are all documented. Deployment is unusually strong: dedicated servers in a German data centre and a self-hosted Data Center Edition that even runs air-gapped, physically separated from the internet. No AI features are described anywhere, so their controls cannot be assessed, and we found no public information on customer-managed keys, data loss prevention, or stated deletion periods for boards and accounts.
European sovereignty
Collaboard
This is why I would shortlist them: the contracting entity is IBV in Bonstetten with a German company in Lörrach, boards can live in Azure Netherlands, Azure Switzerland or the German Open Telekom Cloud, and the published data processing agreement lists each subprocessor with its address, with HubSpot and Google Analytics excluded from the German and Swiss environments. An on-premises edition documented down to air-gapped deployments and government clouds keeps every board on the customer's own servers, and data export plus deletion on termination are documented. What the captured pages do not show is any certification such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5 with its scope.
Conceptboard
The contracting entity is a German GmbH in Halle (Saale) with a commercial register entry, hosting runs in Germany on named infrastructure — IONOS, AWS Frankfurt, or STACKIT — a data processing agreement is published, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 are stated with recertification in 2025, and a subprocessor list with purposes is published, with email provider Brevo hosted at OVH in France and Germany and Google Cloud in Belgium. The documented Data Center Edition runs entirely on the customer's own servers, optionally with no internet connection. The privacy policy names some website-side providers based in third countries under standard contractual clauses, and we found no public information on the company's ownership structure.
Pricing transparency
Collaboard
Free, Basic at "$6/user per month billed yearly" and Advanced at "$11.50/user per month billed yearly" come with concrete limits — 3 boards and 5 participants free, 50 participants and 20 guest editors on Basic, unlimited on Advanced — so the mid tiers are computable, and terms (12 months, one month's notice, VAT excluded) are published. The catch for us: SSO, SCIM, audit logs and self-hosting all sit in the Enterprise tier at "Custom pricing", and German hosting is an unquantified additional charge. The captured pages also give different figures for currency — the pricing page shows dollar amounts while the terms state all prices are in Euro.
Conceptboard
The pricing page publishes Starter at 5€ / user / month, Advanced from 10€ / user / month and Corporate & Government from 14€ / user / month, with minimum users per tier, twelve- and twenty-four-month terms, VAT treatment, monthly or yearly billing, and concrete free-plan limits of three active boards, one hundred objects and 250 MB storage, while the terms spell out cancellation, auto-renewal and annual inflation adjustment. What I cannot yet compute: the single sign-on and Germany-hosting options are flagged only as an additional fee without amounts, guest counting is not explained, and special plans including on-premises are on request.
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.