AI Agents & Assistants
Gemini for Google Workspace
Rest of world Report an errorPanel 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 Google LLC · workspace.google.com
Compare with Microsoft 365 Copilot → 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.
Gemini for Google Workspace at a glance
- Vendor
- Google LLC
- 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
- Starting price
- “Starter 50% off for 3 months help €3.40€6.80** / user per month” (vendor’s words) source, captured 26 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Gemini for Google Workspace 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Gemini for Google Workspace is the Gemini assistant sold with the Google Workspace plans from Google LLC of Mountain View, USA. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 28 Oct 2026. all sources
Gemini for Google Workspace alternatives, European ones first →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Gemini for Google Workspace is the Gemini assistant sold with the Google Workspace plans from Google LLC of Mountain View, USA. The bench scores it highest on pricing transparency, 5-6, and admin and access, 4-6: Starter, Standard and Plus are publicly priced at €6.80, €13.60 and €21.10 per user per month at regular rates, with a 16% annual-commitment saving and a 300-user cap, while the tier pages document data loss prevention, context-aware access, Vault, eDiscovery and tiered endpoint management. Sovereignty is weakest at 2-3: hosting location is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and US Cloud Act exposure is recorded. The judges did not meaningfully split — data use and training, processing and models, integrations and knowledge and agent capabilities all cluster at 3-4 — and the widest spread, 4-6 on admin and access, turns on how much weight to give documented levers when there is no public information on single sign-on, provisioning or audit logs. We found no public information on retention periods, where inference runs, connectors beyond Google's own apps, or what agents may do unsupervised.
Speaks for it
- Three tiers publicly priced in euros — Starter €6.80, Standard €13.60 and Plus €21.10 per user per month at regular rates — with 50% off for 3 months and a stated 16% annual-commitment saving
- Governance levers documented by name — data loss prevention, context-aware access, Vault, eDiscovery and endpoint management from Fundamental to Enterprise — mostly from Plus or Enterprise
- The pricing page states 'your company data is not used to train models' for chats with Gemini, and the privacy notice carries a dedicated European Privacy Standards and GDPR section
- The assistant sits natively in Gmail, Docs, Meet, Drive and the rest of the included suite, with Office file interoperability on all plans and a migration tool from the Standard tier
- User limits are stated outright — a 300-user maximum on Starter, Standard and Plus, and no minimum or maximum on Enterprise
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 2-3: the vendor is Google LLC of Mountain View, USA, hosting location is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and US Cloud Act exposure is recorded with no EU contracting entity stated
- We found no public information on retention periods for chats and files, on where logs live, or on zero-retention terms with the model providers behind the product
- We found no public information on where inference runs or through which provider, and 'Enterprise data regions' appears as a feature name with no stated EU processing commitment
- Agents are sold as a tagline — 'intelligent AI agents' on every plan plus a paid add-on for 'more Workspace Studio automations' — with no public information on run logs, human approval before consequential actions, or testing before rollout
- The Enterprise tier carries no public price and add-ons including AI Expanded Access are 'sold separately' without figures, so a large or agent-heavy deployment's annual cost is not computable
Best for
- You already run Google Workspace and want the AI assistant embedded natively in Gmail, Docs and Meet rather than bolted on
- You are buying within the 300-user cap on Starter, Standard or Plus and want exact euro prices, discount terms and user limits published up front
- Your governance depends on documented retention and discovery tooling — Vault, eDiscovery, data loss prevention — available from Plus or Enterprise
Avoid if
- You must pin hosting or model processing to the EU before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your compliance sign-off needs retention periods and data-lifecycle terms in writing; we found no public information on retention for chats and files or on the terms of the referenced Service Data Addendum
- Your budget requires a full-year forecast for a large or agent-heavy deployment — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your agents must act in ticketing, CRM or ERP systems — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Data use, training & retention | 1.5 of 5 |
| Models & processing location | 1.5 of 5 |
| Admin, identity & access controls | 2.5 of 5 |
| Integrations, connectors & knowledge | 2 of 5 |
| Agent capabilities & guardrails | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 of 5 |
Data use, training & retention
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 pricing page states 'Chat with AI in Gemini, your company data is not used to train models', and the privacy notice covers Workspace with a dedicated European Privacy Standards and GDPR section plus a Service Data Addendum reference. Before I sign for eight hundred staff I need more: I found no public information on retention periods for chats and files, on where logs live, or on zero-data-retention terms with model providers. 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page states "Chat with AI in Gemini, your company data is not used to train models", but I found no public information on retention periods for chats or files, on no-training or zero-data-retention commitments with the model provider, or on abuse-monitoring logs. The privacy notice points to a Service Data Addendum and a GDPR section, but the captured pages do not state its terms, so the training exclusion rests on a marketing line rather than a documented contract. 2 5
The Automation Lead
The pricing page states that "your company data is not used to train models" for chats with Gemini, and the privacy notice covering Workspace adds a European Privacy Standards section and points to a Service Data Addendum. The captured pages give no retention periods for chats, files or agent transcripts, nothing on the model providers' own data terms, and we found no public information on where run logs live or on zero-retention options. 2 5
The Customer-Service Director
The published line is clear for my agents' chats — "your company data is not used to train models" when chatting with Gemini in Workspace — and the Cloud privacy notice covers Workspace with a dedicated GDPR section and references a Service Data Addendum. But I found no public information on retention periods for chats and files, on where logs live, on zero-retention terms with the model providers behind the product, or on abuse-monitoring retention. That is a promise, not a data lifecycle my compliance team can sign off. 2 3 5
The Works Council Member
There is a clear written statement that company data in Gemini 'is not used to train models', and the privacy notice covers Workspace with a dedicated GDPR section — the kind of commitment my council wants in writing. But we found no public information on retention periods for chats and files, on zero-retention options, on abuse-monitoring retention, or on the terms of the referenced Service Data Addendum. 2 5
The Skeptic
The pricing page states "your company data is not used to train models" — one sentence, with no retention periods for chats or files, nothing on logs, and no zero-retention terms with the model providers behind the product. The privacy notice references a Service Data Addendum, which is a pointer rather than the commitments themselves. 2 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
Gemini is the named model behind the assistant and it is run by the vendor itself, and the Enterprise tier lists 'Enterprise data regions' as a feature — but the captured pages never confirm an EU processing or inference option, with residency flagged as unconfirmed. I cannot yet pin processing to Europe for my deployment on this evidence alone. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Gemini is the named model family behind the assistant, but I found no public information on where inference runs or any EU-only processing option. "Enterprise data regions" appears as an Enterprise-tier feature on the pricing page, though the captured pages do not say it covers model processing, agents or connectors. 2
The Automation Lead
Gemini is the named assistant across Gmail, Docs and Meet, and "Enterprise data regions" appears as an Enterprise-tier line item, but where inference runs and through which provider is not stated in the captured facts. We found no public information on pinning model processing to the EU, excluding model providers, or bringing our own model or key. 2
The Customer-Service Director
Gemini is the named assistant across the plans and Google is named as the processor of customer data in the generative AI privacy hub, but I found no public information on where inference runs or through which provider. "Enterprise data regions" is listed as an Enterprise-tier feature on the pricing page, yet no European region for storage or for the models themselves is stated on the captured pages. 2 3
The Works Council Member
Gemini is the named assistant across Gmail, Docs and Meet, but we found no public information on where inference runs or through which provider. 'Enterprise data regions' appears as a feature name on the pricing page with no stated EU processing commitment for the assistant or its models. 2 3
The Skeptic
Gemini is named as the assistant in Gmail, Docs and Meet, but the captured pages never state where inference runs or through which provider. "Enterprise data regions" appears as a bare feature name at the Enterprise tier, with no stated EU option and no residency commitment. 2
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 Enterprise tier documents data loss prevention, context-aware access, Vault 'to retain, archive, and search data', eDiscovery, endpoint management and AI Classification for Drive — a serious admin plane. But I found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, group-based control over which models, agents and connectors each team may use, or audit logs I could stream to a SIEM. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page documents real governance levers — data loss prevention, context-aware access, Vault with eDiscovery, tiered endpoint management and Cloud Identity Premium, most gated to Enterprise or Plus. I found no public information on SSO and SCIM provisioning, group-level control over which models or agents each team may use, or exportable audit logs and their scope, which keeps this short of a regulated-company control set. 2
The Automation Lead
The tier comparison names serious governance — data loss prevention, context-aware access, Cloud Identity Premium, Vault and eDiscovery — with endpoint management stepped from Fundamental to Advanced to Enterprise. For what I need to run agents safely, we found no public information on SSO or SCIM provisioning, group-level permissions for models, agents or connectors, audit log export, or usage reporting and its scope. 2
The Customer-Service Director
The pricing page documents a serious enterprise admin layer — data loss prevention, context-aware access, endpoint management from Fundamental to Enterprise, Vault to retain and search data, eDiscovery, S/MIME, secure LDAP and an Assured Controls add-on — which is well beyond a shared team workspace. But I found no public information on single sign-on with automated provisioning, group-level control over which models or agents each team may use, or exportable audit logs, so I cannot confirm the controls my IT department would operate on day one. 2 8
The Works Council Member
The tier pages document genuine governance levers — data loss prevention, context-aware access, endpoint management tiers, Vault for retaining and searching data, eDiscovery — which is more than a simple team workspace. But we found no public information on single sign-on and provisioning, group-level control over which AI agents colleagues may use, audit logs, or usage reporting that can be aggregated or pseudonymised for a works-council agreement. 2
The Skeptic
Real enterprise controls are listed by name — data loss prevention, Vault "to retain, archive, and search data", eDiscovery, context-aware access, endpoint-management tiers and Cloud Identity Premium, mostly gated to Plus or Enterprise. We found no public information on single sign-on, provisioning, group-level permissions over which AI features each group may use, or exportable audit logs. 2
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
The assistant is native across Gmail, Docs, Drive, Meet and the rest of the included suite, with Office file interoperability, a Google Workspace Migrate tool and AppSheet 'with advanced integrations'. For a mixed estate like mine I found no public information on connectors to external file stores or wikis, a documented API, or how answers cite their sources. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Gemini is embedded in Gmail, Docs and Meet, with Office file interoperability, a migration tool and AppSheet marketed for "advanced integrations" across the suite. I found no public information on a connector library, sync behaviour or completeness, a documented API, or how the assistant cites the sources it answers from. 2
The Automation Lead
The assistant sits natively in Gmail, Meet, Chat, Drive and Docs, with Office file interoperability, a Workspace Migrate tool, and AppSheet sold as a no-code platform with "advanced integrations". As my bridge into ERP, CRM and ticketing that leaves me stranded: we found no public information on a documented API, MCP or webhooks, on connector sync behaviour, or on source citations for grounded answers. 2
The Customer-Service Director
Inside the suite the knowledge reach is native — Gmail, Drive, Docs, Chat and Calendar are the product itself, with Office file interoperability and AppSheet pitched as a no-code platform with "advanced integrations", plus a migration tool. But I found no public information on connectors into ticketing, CRM or order systems, on a documented API or sync behaviour, or on how grounded answers cite their sources, and nothing on telephony beyond a Google Voice add-on sold separately. My agents live in the ticket and order systems, so this is the gap that matters most to me. 2 9
The Works Council Member
The assistant is embedded across the suite's own applications — Gmail, Meet, Chat, Calendar, Drive, Docs and more — with Office file interoperability, a migration tool and a no-code app platform with advanced integrations. We found no public information on connectors to third-party knowledge systems, sync behaviour, a documented API for the assistant, or how answers cite their sources. 2
The Skeptic
The assistant lives inside Google's own Gmail, Drive and Docs, with Office-file interoperability, a migration tool, a telephony add-on and AppSheet's "advanced integrations". We found no public information on connectors to external systems, sync behaviour, a documented API, or citations on grounded answers. 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
'Workspace Studio Automate your workday with intelligent AI agents' and tiered automations, plus AppSheet for no-code apps, are the substance of what is captured. I found no public information on run logs, human approval before consequential actions, evaluation or testing before release, or stated limits on what agents may be trusted with. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Workspace Studio promises to "Automate your workday with intelligent AI agents" on every plan, and an AI Expanded Access add-on sells more automations, image and video generation and speech translation. The captured pages document nothing about what an agent may do in other systems, whether human approval can be required, where run logs live, or any stated limits — marketing names agents, evidence does not describe them. 2
The Automation Lead
Workspace Studio is described as letting you "automate your workday with intelligent AI agents", an add-on grants "more Workspace Studio automations", and daily caps on Audio Overviews show usage metering. The captured pages stop there: we found no public information on actions with scoped permissions, human approval before an agent sends anything, run logs, or testing and evaluation before a company-wide rollout. 2
The Customer-Service Director
Every plan is sold with Workspace Studio to "automate your workday with intelligent AI agents", and an AI Expanded Access add-on buys "more Workspace Studio automations", so agents exist as a real product surface. But I found no public information on what an agent can actually do — actions in other systems, human approval before consequential steps, triggers, run logs, or test-and-evaluate tooling before go-live. Nothing on the captured pages shows a conversation handover to a human with full context, which my forty-seat operation depends on. 2
The Works Council Member
Workspace Studio is marketed as automating the workday with 'intelligent AI agents' on every plan, and an add-on promises more automations — but that is a tagline, not documentation. We found no public information on run logs, testing before release, stated failure limits, or a human approving consequential actions, which are exactly the written rules a council needs before agents touch colleagues' work. 2
The Skeptic
Everything about agents is one tagline — "Workspace Studio: Automate your workday with intelligent AI agents" — plus a paid add-on promising "more Workspace Studio automations". Not one word on what an agent may do unsupervised, approvals before consequential actions, run logs, or stated limits. 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
Google LLC of Mountain View, USA is the vendor, the captured pages leave hosting location unconfirmed and flag exposure to the US Cloud Act with Google named as the processor of customer data, and no subprocessor list with locations appears. The privacy notice's dedicated EU/UK/Swiss GDPR section and its translations are the only European signals I can rely on here. 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor is independently confirmed as Google LLC of Mountain View, USA, and the privacy review names Google as processor of customer data under US Cloud Act exposure with no EU contracting entity stated. I found no public information confirming EU hosting, and no subprocessor list naming the model provider with its region; a comprehensive privacy notice with a GDPR section is the only positive documented, which is marginally above nothing. 3 5
The Automation Lead
A privacy notice covering Workspace exists with a dedicated European Privacy Standards and GDPR section, but hosting location is unconfirmed on the captured pages, and the generative-AI privacy hub names Google as the processor of customer data without stating a headquarters or any EU contracting entity. With Google LLC of Mountain View as the vendor and US Cloud Act exposure flagged, the captured facts show neither EU hosting nor a named model-provider subprocessor. 3 5
The Customer-Service Director
The vendor is Google LLC of Mountain View, USA — a non-European contracting entity — and a Cloud privacy notice covering Workspace exists with a dedicated GDPR section, with Google itself named as the processor of customer data. But I found no public information on where this product's customer data is hosted, on any European entity or safeguard around the US Cloud Act exposure, or on a named subprocessor list with locations; "Enterprise data regions" appears only as a feature name without a stated European region. 2 3 5
The Works Council Member
Google LLC of Mountain View, USA is the vendor, and the captured privacy pages name Google itself as processor while flagging US Cloud Act exposure; no EU contracting entity such as an Irish subsidiary is stated anywhere captured. A privacy notice exists with a GDPR section, but hosting location is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages and the model providers behind the product are not named in a subprocessor list. 3 5
The Skeptic
The sourcing places the vendor at Google LLC, Mountain View, USA; a product-scoped privacy notice with a GDPR section exists, but hosting location is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, no EU contracting entity appears, and the processor analysis flags US Cloud Act exposure with no stated safeguard. "Enterprise data regions" remains a feature name without a stated region. 2 3 5
Pricing transparency
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
Seat prices are public — Starter at '€6.80 / user per month', Standard at '€13.60 / user per month', Plus at '€21.10 / user per month', with 'Annual (Save 16% with 1 year commitment)' and a 300-user cap on those tiers. For my 800 staff I would need the Enterprise plan, whose price is not stated, and the add-ons are only described as 'sold separately' with no figures; AI usage limits surface only piecemeal, such as Audio Overviews 'Up to 3 per day' on Starter. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Three tiers carry exact euro prices per user per month (Starter "€6.80", Standard "€13.60", Plus "€21.10") with storage, participant and daily audio-overview limits, a stated 16% annual-commitment saving, introductory-offer terms and the 300-user cap for non-Enterprise plans. However, add-ons including AI Expanded Access are only "sold separately" with no prices, the Enterprise tier carries no public price in the captures, and no overage or AI-usage rates are stated. 2
The Automation Lead
Starter, Standard and Plus are priced publicly in euros per user per month — €6.80, €13.60 and €21.10 at regular rates, billed monthly with a 16% annual-commitment saving — plus an introductory offer for new customers limited to the first 20 users for 12 months, a 300-user cap on self-serve tiers and daily caps on Audio Overviews. But add-ons are listed as "sold separately" without prices, and we found no public information on Enterprise tier pricing, overage rates for automations, or the cost of AI Expanded Access — so a real annual cost for an agent-heavy deployment stays out of reach. 2
The Customer-Service Director
Per-user prices are public and exact in euros — Starter "€3.40€6.80 / user per month", Standard "€6.80€13.60", Plus "€10.55€21.10", each with "50% off for 3 months", a 16% saving on a one-year commitment, and an introductory offer capped at the first 20 users for 12 months — with a 300-user maximum on the standard tiers and no limit on Enterprise. Usage limits appear for some AI features, such as three Audio Overviews a day on Starter versus twenty on higher plans. But Enterprise is unpriced, add-ons including Voice and AI Expanded Access are "sold separately" with no figures, support upgrades are paid but unpriced, and there is no per-conversation or per-agent-run rate my CFO could forecast a contact-centre budget against. 2
The Works Council Member
Three tiers are publicly priced — Starter €6.80, Standard €13.60 and Plus €21.10 per user per month, with a stated 50% off for 3 months, a 300-user cap on those plans and a 16% annual-commitment saving — so much of the bill is computable. But add-ons such as AI Expanded Access and Assured Controls are 'sold separately' without prices, we found no public information on an Enterprise price or on overage and AI usage rates beyond daily audio-overview limits, and paid support upgrades are listed without figures. 2
The Skeptic
Three tiers are priced publicly in euros — Starter €3.40, Standard €6.80 and Plus €10.55 per user per month at the discounted figures, with regular prices shown, a 16% annual-commitment saving, clear user caps and honest intro-offer terms. But add-ons are "sold separately", and we found no public information on the cost of the Enterprise tier, the AI Expanded Access add-on or support upgrades. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 Report an error |
Questions about Gemini for Google Workspace
Is Gemini for Google Workspace European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Gemini for Google Workspace as Rest of world.
Where does Gemini for Google Workspace store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
Does Gemini for Google Workspace have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Gemini for Google 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: Gemini for Google 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 — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Google is named as the processor of customer data but the excerpt does not state its headquarters or any EU contracting entity (e.g. Google Ireland) that might soften US Cloud Act exposure.
- 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.
- 74 product 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
- 14 pricing 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
- 9 compliance 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
- 8 support 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
- 6 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
- 4 hosting 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
- 2 data 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
- 2 integrations 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage (AI in Workspace) workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Generative AI privacy hub knowledge.workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy cloud.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Models & processing location — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Models & processing location — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →