whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

Gemini for Google Workspace

Rest of world 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 Google LLC · workspace.google.com

Compare with Microsoft 365 Copilot → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Gemini for Google Workspace: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Gemini for Google Workspace: 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.

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 Customer-Service Director

Weighted verdict

Runs a contact centre with forty agents and wants half the routine calls and chats answered by an AI agent. Wants handover to a human with the full context, actions in the order and ticket systems, evaluation before go-live, and a price per conversation the CFO can forecast.

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

Scored by The Customer-Service Director

Panel median The Customer-Service Director 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 Customer-Service Director
Data use, training & retention 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Models & processing location 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Admin, identity & access controls 2.5 of 5 2 of 5
Integrations, connectors & knowledge 2 of 5 2 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 3 of 5 3 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 Gemini for Google Workspace? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (9)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage (AI in Workspace) workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Generative AI privacy hub knowledge.workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy cloud.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Models & processing location — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Models & processing location — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap workspace.google.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →