whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

Ada

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Ada Support Inc. · ada.cx

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Ada: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Ada: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Ada at a glance

Vendor
Ada Support Inc.
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Ada 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Ada is an AI agent platform whose documentation is strongest on connections and controls. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources

Ada alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Signs the DPA and gets asked where a prompt goes. Wants every model provider named as a subprocessor with its region, training excluded for all of them, retention the company controls, and an EU-only switch that also covers agents and connectors — not just the chat window.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Data Protection Officer
Data use, training & retention 2 of 5 2 of 5
Models & processing location 1 of 5 1 of 5
Admin, identity & access controls 3 of 5 3 of 5
Integrations, connectors & knowledge 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 3 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 0.5 of 5

Data use, training & retention

How this is scored

What happens to prompts, uploaded files, connected data and outputs: whether any of it trains a model (the vendor's or a model provider's), how long it is kept and where logs live, whether zero-retention is available, and whether a data processing agreement covers it.

0 — No statement on training or retention; the privacy policy is a website policy that does not cover the product.

3 — A general statement that business data is "not used for training", with no word on retention, on the model providers behind the product or on logs.

5 — Business data excluded from training by contract, retention periods stated for chats and files, and a DPA offered to business customers.

8 — No-training commitments stated for the vendor and every model provider it routes to, retention configurable by the admin (including deletion of chat history), zero-data-retention terms with the model providers named, and abuse-monitoring retention described.

10 — Data use fully accounted for: training, retention, logging and abuse monitoring stated per model provider, customer-controlled retention and deletion with an audit trail, outputs and connected data treated as customer data in the DPA, and an independent audit (SOC 2, ISO 27001 or ISO 42001) covering the product.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Retention is properly published: end-user data deleted after two years, attachments after seven days, transcripts deleted after two years unless personal details are removed, with a bulk deletion API, on-demand GDPR erasure and export before deletion — and LLM calls are described as zero-data-retention, processed in memory for the duration of the request. What I cannot find is any statement on whether prompts, transcripts or connected knowledge are used to train a model, the identity of the model providers behind that zero-retention processing, or a data processing agreement covering all of it. As it stands I could not sign this into a DPA. 1 2

Report an error

Models & processing location

How this is scored

Which models sit behind the product and who runs them, where inference and storage happen, whether the customer can pin processing to the EU, choose or exclude model providers, bring its own model or key, or run the product in its own cloud or on premises.

0 — The models behind the product and the processing location are not stated.

3 — The model family is named, but where inference runs and through which provider (the model maker, a hyperscaler, the vendor) is unstated.

5 — Models and their providers named, with an EU processing option stated for storage and at least the default model.

8 — Each available model listed with provider and inference region, EU-only processing selectable by the admin and enforced across models, model providers excludable, and bring-your-own-key or own-cloud deployment documented.

10 — Processing fully under the customer's control and documented: EU-only or on-premises inference for every feature including agents and connectors, open-weight or self-hosted models supported, data flows per feature published, and a residency commitment in the contract rather than on a marketing page.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The captured pages never say which models sit behind the AI Agent or who runs them, and I found no EU-only processing option an administrator can set across models, agents and connectors. The single location signal is region-specific webhook endpoints for AI Agents in US, EU and Canadian regions in one connector's documentation, which says nothing about where inference happens. 5

Report an error

Admin, identity & access controls

How this is scored

What the IT department controls: SSO and SCIM provisioning, roles and groups, which models, agents and connectors each group may use, retrieval that respects the permissions of the source system, audit logs, usage reporting, and policies such as data-loss prevention — and whether reporting on staff use is scoped and documented.

0 — No admin features documented; accounts are individual sign-ups.

3 — A team workspace with an owner and member invitations, but no SSO, no roles and no audit log.

5 — SSO, admin and member roles, user management, and an admin view of usage.

8 — SAML/OIDC SSO with SCIM provisioning, group-based permissions for models, agents and connectors, retrieval that inherits source-system permissions, exportable audit logs, and usage analytics with documented scope.

10 — Governance a regulated company can operate: fine-grained policies (DLP, content filters, prompt and output logging rules), audit logs streamed to a SIEM, per-agent ownership and approval, usage reporting that can be aggregated or pseudonymised for works-council agreements, and every admin action logged.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

SAML 2.0 single sign-on with any identity provider, session limits for security compliance, and a genuine audit log recording actor, entity, activity and interface across configuration objects from knowledge sources to API tools — filterable and exportable as CSV, capped at 10,000 rows. But provisioning is a manual delete-and-re-add of user accounts, I found no SCIM, no group-based control over which agents, actions or connectors each team may use, and no documented scope for usage reporting on staff. 3 4 7

Report an error

Integrations, connectors & knowledge

How this is scored

How the product reaches company knowledge and systems: connectors to file stores, wikis, mail, CRM, ticketing and ERP, how fast and how completely they sync, the API, support for open protocols such as MCP, and how the assistant cites the sources it answers from.

0 — No integrations; users paste text or upload files one at a time.

3 — File upload and one or two connectors (for example a drive), with no API and no statement on sync or citations.

5 — A connector library covering the common file stores, wikis and collaboration tools, answers citing sources, and a documented API.

8 — Connectors to file stores, wikis, mail, CRM and ticketing with incremental sync, custom connectors or MCP support, an API and webhooks for embedding assistants and agents in other tools, and source citations on every grounded answer.

10 — The product sits in the company's systems: read and write connectors with documented scopes, MCP servers and clients, contact-centre or telephony integration where relevant, a knowledge layer that can be audited and corrected, and the data, agents and configuration exportable when the customer leaves.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The connector library covers the support stack — Zendesk, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Dynamics, Contentful, Dixa, Gladly, Helpjuice — with stated automatic sync intervals down to every 15 minutes, article-level availability rules, a Knowledge API for custom sources, webhooks, and handoffs into Zendesk and Salesforce live chat; MCP even appears among the audit-log interfaces. I found no public information on mail or file-store connectors, and while the reasoning log shows retrieved snippets to administrators, I found nothing on citations shown to end users on grounded answers. 5 3 7

Report an error

Agent capabilities & guardrails

How this is scored

What an agent can actually do and where it stops: multi-step tasks, tool use and actions in other systems, scheduling and triggers, human approval before consequential actions, run logs, evaluation and testing before release, and the limits the vendor states rather than hides.

0 — No agents; the product is a chat window, whatever the marketing says.

3 — Saved prompts or custom assistants with instructions and files, but no actions in other systems and no run history.

5 — Agents that call tools or APIs and run multi-step tasks, built without code, with a log of each run.

8 — Agents that act in connected systems with scoped permissions, human approval configurable per action, triggers and schedules, test and evaluation tooling before release, and documented limits and failure handling.

10 — Agents a business can put in production and account for: versioning and staged rollout, evaluation against test sets, monitoring of quality and cost per agent, handover to a human with full context, every action attributable to the agent and the person who deployed it, and the vendor's own statement of what agents must not be trusted with.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Actions call external systems through stored tokens, Playbooks chain conditions, actions and responses into multi-step workflows built without code, and every run is logged with the request sent, the response received and the knowledge snippets retrieved; Actions can be tested with sample values before use. I found no public information on human approval before consequential actions, on triggers or schedules, or on stated limits and failure handling — without those I cannot call this production-grade. 7 8 2

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where customer data is hosted, and who the subprocessors are — model providers above all, then hosting, search, telephony and email. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; for an AI product the model provider is a subprocessor, so a European interface over a non-European model counts as such.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors (including model providers) unnamed.

3 — A privacy policy exists, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the model providers behind the product are not named as subprocessors.

5 — EU hosting stated and an EU contracting entity, but prompts reach non-EU model providers or other subprocessors without a stated safeguard or EU region.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, every subprocessor listed with its location including model providers, EU inference available, and a DPA offered.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and model processing, every subprocessor European or optional, data export and deletion documented, and a security or certification statement published rather than implied.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The captured pages give no contracting entity or parent company, no hosting infrastructure, and no subprocessor list — for an AI product the model providers are the first subprocessors I need named with their regions, and I found no public information naming them. The only signal is region-specific webhook endpoints for AI Agents in US, EU and Canadian regions, which does not amount to a hosting or residency commitment. 5

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a company can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per seat, per agent, per conversation or per usage unit, what is included in each tier, usage limits and overage, which models, connectors or agents cost extra, minimum seats and term.

0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.

3 — A starting price or "from" figure exists, but usage limits, included models and what scales the cost are unclear.

5 — Prices per tier are public with the main inclusions, but usage limits, overage, agent runs or enterprise features (SSO, audit logs, EU processing) are unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with seat or usage units, usage limits and overage rates, add-ons listed, minimum seats and term stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of seats, agents or conversations, with every usage rate, model surcharge, add-on and support tier and the cancellation and data-return terms published.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

No price figure appears on any captured page — nothing per seat, per conversation or per resolution, no tiers, no limits, no term. The pricing-adjacent statements that do exist — voice and social channels may need separate enabling for billing reasons, handoffs depend on your plan, and initial SSO setup requires an Ada representative — describe a sales-led motion a company cannot budget from public pages. 7 4

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Hosting location Not determined — uncited Report an error
Hosting options Not determined — uncited Report an error
Open source Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data processing agreement Not determined — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Ada

Is Ada European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Ada is based.

Where does Ada store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

Does Ada have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Ada?

As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates Langdock (4/5), Dust (3.5/5) and Unique AI (3.5/5) highest among the other 18 AI Agents & Assistants products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Langdock (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Ada alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Ada? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (8)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.ada.cx Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →