AI Agents & Assistants
Aleph Alpha Workspace
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Aleph Alpha GmbH · aleph-alpha.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
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.
Aleph Alpha Workspace at a glance
- Vendor
- Aleph Alpha GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Aleph Alpha Workspace 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Aleph Alpha Workspace, from Aleph Alpha GmbH of Heidelberg, is described as a sovereign AI workspace combining enterprise-grade chat with agents, skills and connectors, scalable to 100,000+ users. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 28 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Aleph Alpha Workspace, from Aleph Alpha GmbH of Heidelberg, is described as a sovereign AI workspace combining enterprise-grade chat with agents, skills and connectors, scalable to 100,000+ users. The bench's strongest signal is processing and models, at 4-6 with five of six judges at 6: the models are the vendor's own — Kolibri and the Specialized Sovereign LLMs — built in Germany, trained in Europe, small enough to run on-prem; where the hosted workspace runs inference is not stated. Admin and access is flat at 2: we found no public information on single sign-on, roles or an admin console, only per-response records traceable to a named user, model and prompt. Data use and training is the genuine split: one judge credits the custody statement and auditable weights, while the data protection officer scores 1, reading "proprietary data always stays with customers" as a custody claim rather than a training exclusion or retention commitment. Sovereignty scores 4-6; pricing transparency sits at 0.
Speaks for it
- Models are the vendor's own — Kolibri and the Specialized Sovereign LLMs — built in Germany and trained in Europe
- On-prem deployment is offered, described as giving customers control over where and how models are deployed
- Every response is stated to cite its sources and leave a record traceable to a named user, model and prompt
- Model weights, training data and curation are described as transparent and fully auditable for customers, with a voluntary legal report
- The contracting entity is Aleph Alpha GmbH, registered at the Mannheim court (HRB 732804) with a German VAT number
Held against it
- We found no public information on single sign-on, provisioning, role or group permissions, or an admin console for the workspace
- The privacy policy covers website, recruiting, newsletter and analytics channels, and we found no public information on retention or training use for workspace chats, files and outputs
- We found no public information on where hosted workspace customer data resides, on product-level subprocessors, or on a data processing agreement — the named processors (Namecheap and Ashby in the USA, Fastly, Mailchimp) serve the website, recruiting and newsletter
- We found no public information on a connector catalogue, sync behaviour, or support for open protocols such as MCP; the only documented API serves the Kolibri model
- We found no public information on run logs, triggers, schedules or evaluation before release for agents; the stated human-approval mechanism applies to the separate engineering workbench
Best for
- You operate in public sector, defense or industry and want models built in Germany and trained in Europe by a German-registered vendor
- You need on-prem deployment of the vendor's own models and direct API access to Kolibri for mission-critical environments
- You need every response to cite its sources and remain traceable to a named user, model and prompt
- You want a custom agentic workspace solution built with a forward-deployed team, described as maintainable and portable after go-live
Avoid if
- Your rollout depends on single sign-on, provisioning and group-level permissions being documented up front — registration as described is individual (name, email, organisation type, eligibility reason, password)
- You must clear retention and training-use terms for workspace chats and uploaded files before adoption — the published privacy policy addresses website, recruiting, newsletter and analytics channels
- You need a named connector catalogue or open-protocol support before committing — connectors are described at a general level and the only documented API serves the Kolibri model
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Data use, training & retention | 1 of 5 |
| Models & processing location | 3 of 5 |
| Admin, identity & access controls | 1 of 5 |
| Integrations, connectors & knowledge | 2 of 5 |
| Agent capabilities & guardrails | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
Data use, training & retention
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Head of IT
The only product-level statement I can hang anything on is that proprietary data always stays with customers, and that model weights and training data are auditable for customers. Beyond that the privacy policy governs website visits, job applications and newsletters rather than Workspace prompts and uploaded files, and we found no public information on retention periods, a data processing agreement, or where logs live. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The captured privacy policy governs the website — contact forms, newsletter, recruiting, analytics — and its retention figures (six months for rejected applications, fourteen months for analytics) concern those channels, with no word on workspace chats, uploaded files, outputs or logs. The single product-side statement, that proprietary data always stays with customers, is a custody claim rather than a training exclusion, a retention commitment or a data processing agreement. I would not put my signature on this basis. 4 5 2
The Automation Lead
The privacy policy covers the website and recruiting — analytics deleted after 14 months, application documents six months after a rejection — and we found no public information on how workspace prompts, outputs or uploaded files are retained or used for training. The one product-side statement, that proprietary data always stays with customers, says nothing about chat retention, zero-retention or a data processing agreement. 4 5
The Customer-Service Director
The vendor states that proprietary data always stays with customers and that every response leaves a record traceable to a named user, model and prompt, and its model weights and training data are described as auditable. The privacy policy we read, however, covers website, recruiting, newsletter and analytics data with retention periods for those only; we found no public information on retention for workspace chats and files, a data processing agreement, or zero-retention terms. 2 4 5
The Works Council Member
The privacy policy we read covers the website, applications and newsletter — contact data, application files deleted six months after a rejection, analytics deleted after fourteen months — but it says nothing about prompts, workspace files or outputs. The models page promises "Proprietary data always stays with customers", which is welcome, yet we found no public information on whether staff input trains a model, how long chats are kept, where logs live, or on a data processing agreement for the workspace. For a tool whose every response is traceable to a named user, that silence on logging rules is exactly what a works council needs in writing before sign-off. 4 5
The Skeptic
The privacy policy covers the website, contact forms, recruiting and newsletters — retention for application documents and analytics — and I found no public information on what happens to chats, uploaded files or model-provider retention in the workspace. The only product-facing line is that proprietary data "always stays with customers", with nothing on training, logs or a data processing agreement. 4 5
Models & processing location
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Head of IT
The model family is named and self-built — Kolibri, a specialized sovereign LLM built in Germany and trained in Europe — and on-prem deployment is offered, which is exactly the kind of control over where and how processing runs that I want. What the captured pages leave open is where inference runs for the hosted workspace and whether an administrator can pin processing to a region. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages present only the vendor's own models — Kolibri and the specialized sovereign LLM family, built in Germany and trained in Europe — and on-prem deployment is offered, which is the strongest starting point I could ask for on provider exposure. What the pages do not show is where the hosted workspace runs inference, a per-model inference region, or an administrator switch enforcing EU-only processing across agents and connectors. 1 5 2
The Automation Lead
The vendor names its own models — Kolibri and the Specialized Sovereign LLMs — built in Germany and trained in Europe, with on-prem deployment documented, which is the control I want before wiring agents into anything. We found no public information on the inference region for the hosted workspace or a per-model list with providers and regions, so the picture stops short of full customer control. 1 2 5
The Customer-Service Director
Kolibri and the vendor's specialised sovereign large language models are named, are the vendor's own — built in Germany and trained in Europe — and are documented as small enough to run on-prem on infrastructure of the customer's choosing, with a direct API. What we found no public information on is where the workspace service itself runs inference and stores data by default, or admin-selectable EU-only processing. 1 5
The Works Council Member
The models behind the product are the vendor's own — Kolibri and the specialised sovereign LLMs, built in Germany and trained in Europe — so there is no third-party model provider left in the dark, and on-premises deployment is offered, giving real control over where processing happens. We found no public information, however, on where inference runs for the hosted workspace or where its data is stored, which we would need before agreeing to the tool. 1 5 2
The Skeptic
The models are the vendor's own — "Specialized Sovereign LLMs" and Kolibri, built in Germany, trained in Europe, small enough to run on-prem — so the maker is named. But I found no public information on which model answers in the workspace by default, where hosted inference runs, or any admin setting to pin processing to the EU. 1 5
Admin, identity & access controls
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Head of IT
The pages show individual registration with name, email, organization type, eligibility reason and password, plus a claim that every response leaves a record traceable to a named user, model and prompt at a scale of 100,000 users and beyond. We found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, group-based permissions for models, agents and connectors, retrieval that respects source-system permissions, or exportable audit logs — the controls my rollout actually depends on. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on single sign-on, directory provisioning, roles, group permissions or an admin console for the workspace. The governance evidence that does exist is a record of every response traceable to a named user, model and prompt, plus a compliance-by-design claim — useful for attribution, but a long way from what an IT department operates on. 2 4
The Automation Lead
Every response leaves a record traceable to a named user, model and prompt — a real attribution hook — and registration is individual name, email, organisation type and password. We found no public information on single sign-on, roles, group-level permissions for agents or connectors, or an admin console, which is the first thing I need before a rollout to 100,000+ users. 2 4
The Customer-Service Director
The only governance-relevant facts are per-response records traceable to a named user, model and prompt, plus a registration form asking for organisation type and reason for eligibility. We found no public information on single sign-on, provisioning, role or group permissions, an admin console, audit-log export or usage reporting — for forty agents I need seat-level control before anything goes live. 2 4
The Works Council Member
The workspace is described as enterprise-grade and scalable to 100,000 users, and every response leaves a record traceable to a named user, model and prompt — which tells us per-person monitoring exists, but not that usage reporting can be aggregated or pseudonymised for a works-council agreement. We found no public information on single sign-on, provisioning, role or group permissions, audit-log export, or the scope of usage reporting. 2 4
The Skeptic
Registration is an individual sign-up (name, email, organisation type, eligibility reason, password), and I found no public information on single sign-on, roles, groups or an admin console. The one governance-relevant fact is that every response "leaves a record traceable to a named user, model and prompt" — response-level traceability, but nothing on who controls what a group may use. 2 4
Integrations, connectors & knowledge
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Head of IT
Connectors are named as a workspace capability, every response is said to cite its sources, the model is available via API, and a Siemens Polarion integration with source-cited suggestions appears in the engineering workbench. We found no public information on a connector library covering file stores, wikis, mail or CRM, on sync speed and completeness, or on open protocols such as MCP. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
The workspace is documented with agents, skills and connectors that work in the systems teams already use, every response is stated to cite its sources, and the Kolibri model line is offered directly via API. The captured pages name no individual connector, state no sync behaviour or scopes, and document no API for the workspace itself. 2 1 5
The Automation Lead
The workspace is described with agents, skills and connectors that work in the systems teams already use, every response cites its sources, the Kolibri model is reachable directly via API, and there is a Siemens Polarion extension with source-cited suggestions. We found no public information on a connector catalogue, sync behaviour, or support for open protocols such as MCP, so I cannot yet judge how it would reach our ERP or CRM. 1 2
The Customer-Service Director
Connectors and citations are documented at a general level — the workspace works in the systems teams already use and every response cites its sources, models are trained to ground answers — plus a model API and one named third-party integration, Siemens Polarion, on the engineering product. We found no public information on a connector catalogue, sync behaviour, MCP support, or connectors to CRM and ticketing systems, which is exactly what a contact centre runs on. 1 2 5
The Works Council Member
Connectors, skills and an API for the Kolibri model are documented, every response is said to cite its sources, and one solution runs standalone against a PLM tool or as a Siemens Polarion extension. But the connector library itself is not enumerated, and we found no public information on sync behaviour, webhooks, or support for open protocols such as MCP. 1 2
The Skeptic
The workspace is said to come with agents, skills and connectors that "work in the systems your teams already use", and "every response cites its sources" — citations stated plainly, which I credit. But no workspace connector is named, sync behaviour is undescribed, and the only documented API serves the Kolibri model itself; the Polarion/PLM connection belongs to a separate engineering product. 1 2
Agent capabilities & guardrails
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Head of IT
Agents and skills that work in the systems teams already use are documented, answers come with decision-making traces showing which input influenced the output, and the engineering workbench shows suggestions that can be approved or corrected in place. We found no public information on run logs for agent actions, configurable human approval per action, triggers and schedules, or evaluation and testing before an agent goes live. 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
Agents with skills and connectors are documented to work in connected systems, each response leaves a record traceable to user, model and prompt, and the engineering workbench sends its suggestions through human approval or correction in place. We found no public information on run-level permissions, schedules or triggers, evaluation before release, or any stated limits on what agents may be trusted with. 2 5
The Automation Lead
Agents with skills that work in connected systems are the stated core, and the engineering workbench shows source-cited suggestions that can be approved or corrected in place — the human-approval pattern I insist on. We found no public information on run logs, schedules or triggers, or on evaluation and testing of an agent before release, which is exactly what I look for before letting one chase approvals. 1 2
The Customer-Service Director
Agents, skills and connectors acting in the company's systems are described, with every response logged and traceable, and the engineering workbench shows source-cited suggestions that can be approved or corrected in place. We found no public information on human approval configurable per action, triggers and schedules, evaluation and testing before release, or handover to a human with the full conversation context — the make-or-break items for putting an agent in front of customers. 2
The Works Council Member
Agents with skills and connectors are described as working in the systems teams already use, and each response leaves a record traceable to a named user, model and prompt — a run record of sorts. The only human-approval mechanism we found is in the Industrial Engineering Workbench, where source-cited suggestions can be approved or corrected in place; for the general agents we found no public information on a human approving consequential actions, on triggers, schedules, testing before release, or stated limits. 2
The Skeptic
"Agentic AI applications" that work in existing systems is an action claim, and responses leave a record traceable to a named user and prompt — but multi-step execution, approval gates, schedules and run logs for agents are undescribed. The only human-approval statement applies to the separate engineering workbench, where suggestions "can be approved or corrected in place", and no limits on unsupervised action are stated. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Head of IT
The contracting entity is proven German — Aleph Alpha GmbH, Mannheim registry court, German VAT number — and the models are built in Germany and trained in Europe with on-prem deployment offered, which is a credible sovereign story. The captured pages leave open where the hosted workspace keeps customer data, name only website-side processors such as Namecheap and Ashby in the USA alongside Fastly and Mailchimp, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement for the product. 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Aleph Alpha GmbH of Heidelberg, registered at the Mannheim court, and the captured pages present only the vendor's own models — built in Germany, trained in Europe — so I am not looking at a European interface over a non-European model, and on-prem deployment is offered. But where hosted workspace customer data resides is not stated on these pages, the named processors (Namecheap and Ashby in the USA, Fastly, Mailchimp) concern the website and recruiting rather than the product, and no data processing agreement appears on the captured pages. 1 3 4 5
The Automation Lead
The contracting entity is Aleph Alpha GmbH, registered at the Mannheim court, and the models are its own, built in Germany and trained in Europe with an on-prem option — a European vendor running European models. We found no public information on where workspace data is hosted or which subprocessors sit behind the product; the processors named in the privacy policy — Fastly, Mailchimp, Ashby, Namecheap — serve the website and recruiting, and no data processing agreement appears on the pages read. 1 3 4 5
The Customer-Service Director
Aleph Alpha GmbH is a German entity registered in Mannheim with its seat in Heidelberg, and it states its models are built in Germany and trained in Europe, deployable on-prem, with proprietary data staying with the customer. Where the workspace product hosts customer data is not stated, and the subprocessors actually named — Ashby and Namecheap in the USA, Fastly, Mailchimp — are scoped to the website, recruiting and newsletter rather than the product. 3 4 5
The Works Council Member
The contracting entity is Aleph Alpha GmbH, registered in Mannheim with offices in Heidelberg, the models are built in Germany and trained in Europe, and on-premises deployment is offered — a genuinely European arrangement as far as it goes. The privacy policy's subprocessor list covers only the website and recruiting (Fastly, Mailchimp, Ashby and Namecheap, the latter processing in the USA), and we found no public information on where workspace customer data is hosted, on product-level subprocessors, or on a data processing agreement. 1 3 4 5
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is solidly European: Aleph Alpha GmbH, Mannheim registry, German VAT, Heidelberg address, models built in Germany and trained in Europe. But the privacy policy names only website subprocessors — Namecheap and Ashby in the USA, Fastly, Mailchimp — and I found no public information on where workspace data is hosted, which subprocessors serve the product, or a data processing agreement. 3 4 5
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The Head of IT not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing: the homepage, solutions and models pages captured here give no per-seat figures, tiers, usage limits, agent or connector costs, minimums or term, and the documented contact options center on a sales inquiry. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public pricing information on the pages we captured — homepage, solutions, imprint, privacy policy and models overview. No tier, seat price or usage unit appears in them, and the only documented route to cost is a sales contact. 1 2 3 4 5
The Automation Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing: the homepage, solutions page and models overview name no price, tier, seat count or usage unit, and the documented contact path for the product is a sales inquiry. 1 2 5
The Customer-Service Director
The captured pages offer sales and support inquiry channels and custom solutions built by a forward-deployed team, but we found no public information on pricing of any kind — no tiers, no per-seat, per-agent or per-conversation rates, no usage limits or term conditions. My CFO could not forecast a single number for forty agents from what is published. 1 2
The Works Council Member
We found no public information on prices — per seat, per agent or per usage unit — nor on tiers, usage limits, add-ons, minimum seats or term. Every route to the product runs through a sales inquiry, so the annual cost cannot be computed from public pages alone. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
We found no public information on prices in the captured pages: no per-seat figure, no tiers, no usage limits. Adoption is described as "bring your own application, buy off the shelf, or customize together" with a sales contact as the buyer path, so no annual cost for a given number of seats can be computed. 1 2 5
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Aleph Alpha Workspace
Is Aleph Alpha Workspace European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Aleph Alpha Workspace as EU-Made.
Where does Aleph Alpha Workspace store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
Does Aleph Alpha Workspace have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Aleph Alpha Workspace?
As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Langdock (4/5), Dust (3.5/5) and Unique AI (3.5/5) highest among the other 15 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: Aleph Alpha Workspace alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 26 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (aleph-alpha.com/en, aleph-alpha.com/en/solutions, aleph-alpha.com/impressum, aleph-alpha.com/datenschutz, aleph-alpha.com/en/models-overview). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 5 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage aleph-alpha.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Solutions page (Workspace Essentials) aleph-alpha.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice aleph-alpha.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy aleph-alpha.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Models & processing location — found from sitemap aleph-alpha.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →