OTRS vs Znuny

OTRS

Three captures of the homepage produced no queues, no SLA timers, no routing, no search — the entire registry is legal notices and the vendor's own privacy policy, so the engine is unevidenced end to end. rubric level 0 is where absence of any ownership/status/history model sits, and I can't even confirm a shared mailbox.

Znuny

The queue model is real: queues grouped by department, service, product or country, tickets moved or split between them, and ownership, priority and move as explicit permissions with close, pending and bounce screens. But I found no public information on SLA timers, escalation chains, or what search actually covers, and the routing evidence stops at dispatching all mail to one queue or by recipient field.

OTRS

No channel facts at all — the only 'channels' in the evidence are the vendor's own ad pixels and embeds (Google, LinkedIn, X, YouTube), which are marketing plumbing, not support channels landing in one queue. There isn't even a logo count to be skeptical about.

Znuny

The channel evidence is one mail-collection page: any number of mailboxes over IMAP, POP3 and MSGraph with OAuth2 and folder selection — solid email plumbing, nothing more. The "phone screens" permission records agent-taken calls as tickets, but I found no public information on telephony integration, chat, a customer portal, messengers, or a customer history shared across channels.

OTRS

The single FAQ mention is OTRS's own website FAQ named in the privacy policy as a reason for collecting trial registrations — that is the vendor's help centre, not a product capability. No article workflow, no deflection, no suggestions: rubric level 0.

Znuny

I found no public information on a knowledge base, help centre, article workflow, article suggestions or deflection reporting on any captured page. The only self-service-adjacent item is a community forum, which serves the operator, not the operator's customers.

OTRS

The vendor's own GDPR hygiene is real: a named external DPO (IITR GmbH), a published privacy statement with stated retention periods, SCCs documented for the US video-conference processor, and recording gated on documented consent. But every one of those facts governs OTRS GmbH's website — nothing evidences a signable DPA, agent roles, retention configuration or an executable deletion path for a customer's ticket archive, which pins this just above zero.

Znuny

Access control is genuinely granular: seven basic permissions per queue and module, plus extended permissions like phone, close and compose that only apply after system configuration — more than coarse roles. But I found no public information on a signable DPA, a stated retention period, an executable deletion path, attachment handling, or an audit log of who opened which ticket, and subprocessor exposure is recorded as unknown.

OTRS

The only named 'integrations' are the vendor's marketing stack — Google Ads, Hotjar, 6sense, HubSpot — which are pixels on their site, not CRM or shop connectors for a helpdesk. No REST API, no webhooks, no rate limits, no SSO: rubric level 0.

Znuny

The only evidenced connection to an outside system is Microsoft mailbox collection via the MSGraph protocol, which reads mail in. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, CRM or shop integrations, SSO, SCIM provisioning, or rate limits.

OTRS

The contracting entity is firmly German and register-listed (OTRS GmbH, HRB 143059, Amtsgericht Frankfurt, DE VAT number), which is a genuine plus the pipeline's 0 doesn't credit. But where the ticket archive is hosted and which subprocessors touch it is entirely unstated, and the policy concedes processors 'could also be used outside the European Union' — so rubric level 3's absent-subprocessor-list scenario is where this lands.

Znuny

The German contracting entity is fully evidenced down to the Charlottenburg register number and VAT ID, and the software is publicly downloadable to run on your own infrastructure, which for many buyers is the strongest posture on the archive's location. But I found no public information on a subprocessor list, hosting or data-residency statements for vendor-run services, certification, or what Znuny Professional Services touches — and ownership is recorded as unknown.

OTRS

Three homepage captures on three dates surfaced no per-agent price, no tiers, no billing period, no light-agent terms — a support lead cannot compute even the headline from these pages. No public prices at all is exactly rubric level 0.

Znuny

The licence line is unambiguous — "Software is free", with a public download and a stated latest LTS version — so the software portion of the invoice is trivially computable at zero for any agent count. But Znuny Professional Services and any paid support carry no public figures, so the real annual cost of running this with vendor backing is not computable from the captured pages.