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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has read "European AI" on a wrapper that sends every prompt to a US model, "agents" that are saved prompts, and "we never train on your data" with no word on the model provider behind it. Asks which model answers, where it runs, what it may do unsupervised, and what a thousand seats cost.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic 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 Skeptic
Data use, training & retention 2 of 5 2 of 5
Models & processing location 1 of 5 0.5 of 5
Admin, identity & access controls 3 of 5 3 of 5
Integrations, connectors & knowledge 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 3 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1 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 Skeptic

Retention is genuinely documented — attached files go after seven days, end-user data after two years, transcripts with personal data likewise, with a bulk deletion API, export before expiry and on-demand GDPR erasure — and the vendor states model processing follows zero-data-retention principles, held in memory only for the duration of the request. But no captured page states whether anything trains on customer data, names the model providers behind the product, or offers a data processing agreement, and retention is described as a fixed schedule rather than something an admin configures. I cannot sign off on a data posture when I do not know who the other processors are. 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 Skeptic

The captured pages name not one model or provider behind this product: no inference region, no admin option to pin processing to the EU, no way to exclude a provider, and no bring-your-own-key or own-cloud deployment. The zero-data-retention wording confirms prompts reach some model whose identity and location the vendor leaves unstated; the only regional signal is per-region webhook endpoints for US, EU and Canadian environments, which says nothing about where answers are generated. 1 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 Skeptic

SAML 2.0 single sign-on with any identity provider, an audit log recording who changed what, when and through which interface with filters and CSV export, session limits, and role-gated setup permissions are real IT-grade material. But provisioning is manual — accounts are deleted and re-added to move them to single sign-on, and initial setup itself needs an Ada representative — and we found no public information on automated SCIM provisioning, group-level permissions over models or connectors, or data-loss-prevention policies; audit exports also cap at 10,000 rows. 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 Skeptic

Eight knowledge-base connectors with stated sync cadences — Salesforce, ServiceNow and Microsoft Dynamics every fifteen minutes, Helpjuice every two hours — plus private-article ingestion, availability rules, a Knowledge API for custom sources, webhooks, and handoffs into Zendesk and Salesforce chat is a serious connector story, and MCP appears as an interface in the audit log. Coverage is helpdesk knowledge, though: we found no public information on file-store, mail or CRM-record connectors, and no statement that end users see source citations — the log of retrieved article snippets is operator-facing. 2 5 6 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 Skeptic

Actions call external APIs with token-based authentication, Playbooks chain conditions, actions and responses into multi-step workflows built by dragging blocks rather than writing code, every action run logs the request and response data, and test conversations, test cases and simulations appear as tracked objects. We found no public information on configurable human approval before consequential actions, on triggers or schedules, or on the vendor's own statement of what these agents must not be trusted with. Given the agent can be wired into external systems, those are exactly the questions I would ask before production. 2 3 7 8

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 Skeptic

Per-region webhook endpoints for US, EU and Canadian environments hint at regional separation, and the vendor states model processing follows zero-data-retention principles in memory. Beyond that, the captured pages state no contracting-entity jurisdiction, no hosting location for customer data, and no subprocessors — the model providers behind the product go unnamed — and we found no public information on a data processing agreement. Unproven is not sovereign. 1 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 Skeptic

No price appears on any captured page — no per-seat figure, no per-resolution figure, no tier table. We learn only that plans exist, that Voice and Social channels may need to be enabled separately for billing reasons, that handoffs depend on the plan, and that single sign-on setup and custom integrations run through an Ada representative. I cannot compute a thousand seats from this, and neither can a buyer. 4 7

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 →