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 Works Council Member
Sits on the works council of an insurance company and leads its IT committee, which has to agree before any tool that could show who did what goes live (§87(1) no. 6 BetrVG). Reads the admin documentation before the feature page: whether contributions and time on board are tracked per person, what a manager can see, how long logs are kept, what the AI does with retrospective notes, and where the boards are stored and by whom.
Collaboard
This judge's pick
Conceptboard
Criterion by criterion
Canvas, templates & content
Collaboard
An infinite canvas carries sticky notes, shapes, five digital pens, tables, mind maps and documents, and templates are managed centrally for the organisation — owners and managers create organisation templates in admin-defined categories, from a library of over 250 English and 350 German templates. We found no public information on search across boards, documented performance limits for large boards, or what Collaboard AI does with board content; for a works council, that silence around retrospective notes weighs more than any feature list. Kanban appears as a use case, and imported kanban boards are recommended to be rebuilt manually.
Conceptboard
A shared visual space with commenting and collaborative editing is documented, with a template library for workshops and meetings that can be adopted and adapted to the organisation, kanban boards, backlog and sprint planning, timelines and Gantt-style views, tasks and annotations, and file uploads with stated limits (10–100 MB per upload by tier, 100 objects per board on the free plan). We found no public information on the canvas primitives (sticky notes, shapes, connectors, freehand drawing, pen input), on search across boards, or on AI clustering and summarising of notes, so I cannot place it in the upper bands.
Workshop facilitation & participation
Collaboard
Guests edit without an account up to stated per-tier limits, and the voting system is documented step by step — anonymous votes, results visible only to the facilitator, an archive, participant selection and an "I finished" signal — alongside a timer, presentation and focus modes, follow-the-presenter and locking. The board runs inside Teams, Webex and Pexip. We found no public information on a private or anonymous mode for notes, breakout areas, a session agenda, or an accessibility statement.
Conceptboard
Live moderation, a timer, voting, sections that carry a presentation from section to section, and temporary guest access for externals are documented, the board runs inside Microsoft Teams and Webex meetings, and there is an accessibility statement backed by an external audit against EN 301 549 and BITV 2.0 that reports partial compliance. We found no public information on an anonymous or private mode for notes, on participant limits per session, on locking objects or breakout areas — precisely the items I would need documented before a retrospective format goes live.
Integrations, import & export
Collaboard
Imports from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard are documented with a full object mapping, imported PDFs convert into editable elements, boards embed in Confluence and Nextcloud, Jira issues are importable, and a public API with user-tied, expiring keys is described. Export is documented as vector PDF. We found no public information on webhooks, a two-way sync with Jira or Azure DevOps, or export as image or CSV of the notes.
Conceptboard
Named integrations cover Microsoft Teams, Webex, Confluence via iFrame embedding, Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive and a Jira integration that reflects tickets and status on the board, and the terms mention interfaces for programmatic access such as APIs; full export and deletion of data is offered automatically or on request. We found no public information on export formats (PDF, image, CSV of notes), a two-way Jira sync, webhooks, or imports from other whiteboards, so a structured exit cannot be planned from the captured pages alone.
Sharing, permissions & administration
Collaboard
Roles for owner, moderator, editor and reader, password-protected boards, time-limited links with separate expiry for registered users and guests, and centrally enforced sharing policies — guest invitations and email invitations can be switched off across the tenant — are all documented. SCIM provisioning is described in detail, and the audit log covers the whole tenant with user, IP address and action per event, exportable as CSV and kept 90 days on the web and Swiss environments and 365 days on the German one — the kind of record a works council must see before any tool that shows who did what goes live. We found no public information on domain capture, legal hold, or what happens to a person's boards when they leave.
Conceptboard
Individual access rights per file, board and project with role-based permissions, SAML 2.0 / OAuth 2.0 single sign-on, two-factor authentication, advanced admin controls and audit logs in the Corporate tier are documented, and the privacy policy states server log retention of generally 28 days with audit logs up to 180 days — a figure my committee would anchor in the agreement. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, centrally enforced sharing policies, domain capture, transfer of boards when a person leaves, or export of audit logs to a SIEM.
Security, AI controls & deployment
Collaboard
Individual activity is described plainly: an activity logbook tracks all actions on a board and the audit log records who viewed, changed or exported a project with IP address, downloadable by subscription owners and managers — exactly what we assess under co-determination before rollout. Encryption in transit and at rest, own certificates, a confidential-cloud option and an on-premises, air-gapped edition are stated, and deletion of all user data on termination is promised, though without a stated period. We found no public information on an admin switch for AI features, on whether board content trains AI models, or on which AI providers process it — the audit log names AI actions such as sticky note detection but says nothing about their data use.
Conceptboard
Encryption is stated with technical detail (TLS 1.2 with AES-256 GCM, elliptic curve cryptography and forward secrecy in transit, AES-256 at rest), backups, network segmentation, pseudonymised user IDs and logged admin access are documented, and the deployment ladder runs from a managed German cloud to a dedicated single-tenant server to an on-premises Data Center Edition that even operates fully air-gapped with customer-controlled update timing. We found no public information on AI features and whether an administrator can switch them off, on what managers can see of individual contributions and time on board, or on a statement or template for works council agreements — for a Betriebsvereinbarung that documentation gap is what holds my score below the top band.
European sovereignty
Collaboard
The contracting entity is IBV Informatik AG in Bonstetten, Switzerland, with a registered German office in Lörrach, and boards run on named infrastructure: Microsoft Azure in the Netherlands or Switzerland, or Open Telekom Cloud with Telekom Deutschland GmbH in Bonn; the published data processing agreement commits to processing only in the EU, EEA or Switzerland and lists subprocessors with their addresses. A documented on-premises, air-gapped edition keeps every board on the customer's own servers, and German and Swiss hosting exclude HubSpot and Google Analytics. We found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2, and the AI providers in the chain are unnamed.
Conceptboard
The contracting entity is Conceptboard Cloud Service GmbH in Halle (Saale), German law governs, boards are hosted in Germany on named infrastructure (IONOS and AWS in the Frankfurt region, optionally IONOS CLOUD or STACKIT), ISO 27001/27017/27018 certifications are stated, a data processing agreement is published, and the privacy policy lists the subprocessors with EU locations given for some (email via OVH in France and Germany and Google Cloud in Belgium) and standard contractual clauses as the safeguard for providers in third countries. An on-premises edition that keeps every board on the customer's own servers is documented as well; we found no public information on locations for several other named subprocessors such as the help-centre and applicant-management providers.
Pricing transparency
Collaboard
Free, Basic and Advanced tiers are published with per-user monthly prices (Basic $6, Advanced $11.50, each billed yearly) and unusually clear limits per tier — boards, participants, guest editors and upload size — while the terms state annual commitment, one month's notice, and prices in Euro exclusive of VAT. Enterprise, the tier that carries single sign-on, audit logs and self-hosting, is custom pricing, and German hosting is available for an additional charge with no amount given. We found no public information on monthly-billed rates, minimum seats or AI fees.
Conceptboard
All three paid tiers are public with per-user prices ("5€ / user / month Starter", "From 10€ / user / month Advanced", "From 14€ / user / month Corporate & Government"), free-plan limits are stated (3 active boards, 100 objects per board, 250 MB storage), as are minimum users per tier, contract terms of 12 and 24 months, VAT treatment, payment methods and the 90-day cancellation notice. Single sign-on and the IONOS or STACKIT hosting options are marked "additional fee" without amounts and Special Plans are "on request", so the full annual cost of a regulated deployment is not computable from public pages alone.
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.