OTRS vs Znuny

OTRS

Nothing in the captured pages evidences a queue, a status model, an SLA timer, routing rules or ticket search — I cannot even confirm a ticket exists in this product from this sheet. For a shop at ten-thousand-ticket volume, an engine the evidence is silent on is an engine I must treat as absent.

Znuny

The queue concept is real: queues are permission objects grouped by department, service or country, tickets move or split between teams, and ownership, priority, pending and close are all permissioned screens, with mail dispatched by selected queue or by recipient. But we found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, escalation chains, or a search that finds a ticket from a half-remembered phrase — at December volume that search is what I live in.

OTRS

No email, chat, phone, portal, WhatsApp or social channel lands anywhere in this evidence; the only channel-adjacent fact is a video-conference tool OTRS itself uses, hosted with a US processor. One queue with one history, an order surface inside the ticket, a customer moving mid-issue — none of it is evidenced.

Znuny

Email is well covered — any number of mailboxes over IMAP, POP3 and MSGraph feeding the queues, with password or OAuth2 authentication — and a "phone screens" permission hints at phone tickets. We found no public information on live chat, a customer portal, WhatsApp or any messenger, on telephony integration with call logging, or on whether a customer switching channel keeps one history. For a shop that starts on WhatsApp, this reads as email with a phone screen.

OTRS

The lone FAQ mention is about viewing FAQs on OTRS's own website during free-trial registration, not a public help centre with workflow or deflection reporting in the product. No article states, no suggestions, no deflection number my December ticket count would respond to — silence is the information here.

Znuny

Nothing on the captured pages describes a customer help centre, article workflow, suggestions to agents or customers, or deflection reporting. The forum and professional services shown are the vendor's own support channels for running the software, not self-service for end customers. Deflection is my December metric, and here it is simply not evidenced.

OTRS

Retention is stated per category (6 months application data, 5 years business cards, 10 years email archive), a DPO is named and a Trust Center exists, which already beats the anchor-3 state of 'no stated retention period'. But this is the vendor's handling of its own website visitors, not the product's ticket archive: no agent roles, no queue visibility, no audit of who opened which ticket, no executable requester deletion is evidenced — so it cannot reach 5.

Znuny

Access control is the strong part: seven basic permissions from read-only to full access, extended screen rights for close, pending, bounce, forward and compose, and queues as permission objects giving queue-level visibility. We found no public information on a published DPA, retention periods, deletion of a requester's data, an audit log of who opened which ticket, or how attachments like order confirmations are handled.

OTRS

No API, no webhooks, no rate limits, no named CRM, shop or identity integration appears anywhere in the three homepage captures or the legal pages. The order in front of the agent without a second login has zero support in this registry — hand-copied context is the anchor-0 state.

Znuny

My test is the order in front of the agent without a second login, and we found no public information on shop, CRM or order-management integrations, a documented API, webhooks or SSO. The only programmatic reach shown is mail collection via MSGraph and X-OTRS headers that can set ticket data from an external system.

OTRS

But where the ticket archive is hosted is unstated, the product's subprocessor list is absent, and the vendor's own web chain runs Google, LinkedIn, Vimeo and 6sense with US transfers papered over by SCCs — that is the anchor-3 'subprocessor list absent' arm, not 5.

Znuny

Znuny GmbH is a German company with a Charlottenburg register entry, a VAT ID and a downloadable product, so the ticket archive can run on my own infrastructure under an EU contracting party. We found no public information on hosting arrangements, company ownership, subprocessors, or whether vendor support can read customer data — those gaps cap it for me.

OTRS

Three homepage captures plus the legal and privacy pages and there is no per-agent price, no tier, no billing period, no VAT treatment — every tier is a sales conversation, which is rubric level 0 verbatim. A support lead could not compute one line of the annual invoice from these pages.

Znuny

The product page states the software is free, "Free as free can be", with a public download and no tier or add-on prices shown, so the software price is public for any agent count. But professional services are offered without published numbers, so a support lead who needs implementation help cannot compute the real annual invoice from the public pages alone.