whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

Dust

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by Permutation Labs · dust.tt

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

Link to this page

Dust: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Dust: 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.

Dust at a glance

Vendor
Permutation Labs
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Default not stated; pages mention the US and the EU source, captured 26 Oct 2026
Free plan
Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 26 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Dust 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Dust, an agent platform from Permutation Labs of Paris, is strongest on integrations and knowledge, where the computed range is 8 to 8: 20+ connectors from Slack and Notion to Salesforce and Zendesk, MCP in both directions, and grounded answers that link back to their sources. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 28 Oct 2026. all sources

Dust alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Works Council Member

Weighted verdict

Has a co-determination right the moment a tool can monitor staff, and an AI assistant logs every prompt. Wants usage reports that can be aggregated or pseudonymised, prompt logging rules set out in writing, a human approving what agents do to colleagues, and no training on staff input.

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

Scored by The Works Council Member

Panel median The Works Council Member 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 Works Council Member
Data use, training & retention 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Models & processing location 4 of 5 4 of 5
Admin, identity & access controls 3.5 of 5 4 of 5
Integrations, connectors & knowledge 4 of 5 4 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 3.5 of 5 3.5 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 Works Council Member

Training is addressed in writing: our data never trains the vendor's models, the named model providers are prohibited from using customer and personal data for training, and a zero data retention policy is stated for them, with custom retention policies and SOC 2 Type II on top. We found no public information on abuse-monitoring retention or on admin-driven deletion of chat histories, and the DPA with custom legal terms is reserved for the enterprise tier — points we would need settled in the agreement before staff prompts flow. 1 2 3 4

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 Works Council Member

Model families and providers are public, EU-hosted variants are listed per provider and flagged in the picker, and an EU workspace can lock the model picker, the agent builder and the auto models to EU-hosted models, with admins able to cap which models each member selects. The EU lock only applies on a credit-based plan using the vendor's own model hosting rather than members' own provider keys, and single-tenant deployment is an enterprise feature. 2 3 5 6

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 Works Council Member

SSO, automated provisioning and deprovisioning, SCIM-synced groups, three roles with additive granular permissions, group-level control over agents, tools and connectors, audit logs, and analytics on activity, usage, costs and ROI are all documented — solid IT governance. For our co-determination file, though, we found no public information on usage reporting that can be aggregated or pseudonymised for a works agreement, and audit logs can be enabled or disabled by an admin, so prompt-logging rules would have to be fixed in writing contractually. 1 6 7 8

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 Works Council Member

Twenty-plus connectors including Slack, Notion, GitHub and Drive, any tool via MCP, data scoping at folder or document level down to sub-pages and specific channels, developer, conversation and data source APIs, and agent tools that search, update and create in Confluence, Notion, GitHub, Salesforce, HubSpot and Zendesk. Grounded answers link back to their sources, which we need for verification. We found no public information on sync frequency or on exporting data, agents and configuration when a customer leaves. 2 7 10 11

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 Works Council Member

Agents run multi-step, act in connected systems on personal or workspace credentials that must be configured at admin level, and run on schedules and webhooks, with each run recorded as a reviewable conversation, credit consumption inspectable, and webhook sources restricted to admin creation. Human approval appears only as a general "human review" phrase rather than a per-action approval setting, and we found no public information on test or evaluation tooling before release — both are conditions we would set before agents act on colleagues. 1 11 12

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 Works Council Member

The contracting party is Permutation Labs of Paris, France, trading as Dust, an EU region with EU-hosted models is available, a DPA is offered and SOC 2 Type II is stated. The model providers are named — OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral, Google, Fireworks — with several of them US-headquartered, hosting runs on Google Cloud Platform and QDrant Cloud, and transfers to the United States are acknowledged with standard contractual clauses as safeguard; ownership is not publicly stated, so a fully European chain end to end is not demonstrated on these pages. 2 4 5

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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 Works Council Member

Pro is 30€/month or 24€/month billed yearly with 8,000 credits, Max is 150€/month or 120€/month billed yearly with 40,000 credits, and the free tier, 20% annual saving, VAT exclusion, no credit rollover, mid-cycle proration and admin-enabled capped overage are all public. The overage rate, the pricing of model access tiers and enterprise volume pricing are not published figures, so the true annual cost cannot be computed from the public pages alone. 2 5 12

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 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.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified 0/2 pts 4 Report an error

Questions about Dust

Is Dust European?

Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Dust as EU-Made.

Where does Dust store data?

The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention the US and the EU as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 26 Oct 2026.

Does Dust have a free plan?

Yes. Dust has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 26 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Dust?

As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Langdock (4/5), Unique AI (3.5/5) and Omnifact (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: Dust 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 Dust? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (12)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Security page dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Privacy policy naming the legal entity dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.dust.tt Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →