AI Agents & Assistants
Langdock
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Langdock GmbH · langdock.com
Compare with Claude for Work → Compare with nele.ai → 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.
Langdock at a glance
- Vendor
- Langdock GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Europe source, captured 26 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Langdock 4/5, the mean of 6 judges. Langdock is an AI workspace from Langdock GmbH of Berlin offering chat, agents, workflows and a 40-plus-model API; the bench scored it 7 to 9 across its seven criteria. 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
Langdock is an AI workspace from Langdock GmbH of Berlin offering chat, agents, workflows and a 40-plus-model API; the bench scored it 7 to 9 across its seven criteria. Its strongest area is processing and models at 8–9: EU-only inference by default, data at rest in EU data centres even for global models, bring-your-own-key and own-cloud or on-premises deployment — and it drew the bench's only 9, from the skeptic. Data use and training, agent capabilities and sovereignty sit at 8: contractual no-training terms, an automatically concluded data processing agreement with 30-day post-termination deletion, human confirmation on agent action nodes, and Azure Frankfurt hosting with a published subprocessor list, though we found no public information on ownership. Integrations and knowledge scored a flat 7, with admin and access and pricing transparency at 7–8: we found no public information on exportable audit logs, per-model inference regions, abuse-monitoring terms beyond the Azure models, or fair-use quantities and overage rates. The flagged split check flagged nothing; no criterion spread more than one point.
Speaks for it
- Contractual no-training terms cover Langdock and every model provider it engages, with a data processing agreement concluded automatically.
- EU-only processing is the default, and data at rest stays in EU data centres even when a global-deployment model is selected.
- MCP support is deep: a directory of 79 officially operated remote servers, custom MCP servers with OAuth or API-key auth, and apps rendered in a sandboxed iframe.
- Agent action nodes run only after human confirmation, with versioned publishing and pass-or-fail compliance checks on every new agent version.
- Published prices cover the €23.20 Standard seat, the €99.00 Business Max seat per user per month, €449.00 per workspace per month with 40,000 workflow runs, and per-token API rates.
Held against it
- We found no public information on exportable audit logs or streaming to a SIEM.
- Zero-data-retention abuse monitoring is documented only for the Azure-hosted models.
- We found no public information on the inference region of each individual model.
- We found no public information on fair-use quantities or overage rates, and Enterprise pricing is on request.
- We found no public information on evaluation of agents against test sets before release.
Best for
- You are an EU-based company that needs EU-only processing by default, contractual no-training terms and an automatically concluded data processing agreement.
- You want model choice — forty-plus models through one API — with bring-your-own-key so the workspace runs only on models you configure yourself.
- You are deploying agents that take real actions in connected tools and need human-confirmation gates plus an admin console to approve, flag or disable them.
- You run at enterprise scale and want dedicated deployment — single tenant from 2,000 seats, own cloud or on-premises from 5,000.
Avoid if
- Your intended use is prohibited or classified as high-risk under the EU AI Act; the terms of use bar these uses.
- You must compute your full annual cost in advance; we found no public information on fair-use quantities or overage rates, and Enterprise pricing is on request.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Data use, training & retention | 4 of 5 |
| Models & processing location | 4 of 5 |
| Admin, identity & access controls | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations, connectors & knowledge | 3.5 of 5 |
| Agent capabilities & guardrails | 4 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 4 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3.5 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
No-training is contractual, not just marketing: the terms state Langdock engages model providers only on agreements where those providers are "also prohibited from using Customer Content to develop, train or improve their AI Models", the DPA is auto-concluded, admins set a retention period with automatic chat deletion, per-artifact deletion behavior is documented, data is deleted 30 days after termination, and ISO 27001 plus SOC 2 Type II certifications are published. Zero-data-retention abuse monitoring is documented for the Azure-hosted models specifically; we found no public information on abuse-monitoring terms for the other model providers. 4 5 7 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
The terms exclude our content from training not only for Langdock but contractually for every model provider it routes to, and the Article 28 DPA is automatically concluded. Retention is ours to control — an admin-configurable chat retention period, documented deletion behaviour for files across chats, agents and knowledge bases, and deletion no later than 30 days after termination — while Azure models run with zero-data-retention abuse monitoring. Only Microsoft's abuse-monitoring terms are described, and I found no audit trail for deletions, which is what keeps this short of full accountability. 7 9 10 4 5
The Automation Lead
The terms commit that neither Langdock nor any model provider it engages may train on customer content, Azure models run with modified abuse monitoring described as zero data retention for prompts and outputs, and a DPA under Art. 28 GDPR is automatically concluded. Admins set the chat retention period, deletion behaviour is documented per feature for chats, agents, folders and knowledge bases, and data is deleted within 30 days of termination. I would want the same abuse-monitoring and zero-retention detail for every provider, not just Microsoft, before calling it fully accounted. 5 7 9 10
The Customer-Service Director
The terms state that neither Langdock nor the model providers it engages may use customer content to train models, admins can set a chat-retention period with deletion behaviour documented for chats, agent files and folders, and Azure-hosted models run with zero-data-retention abuse monitoring, on top of an automatically concluded DPA and published ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II certificates. The abuse-monitoring and retention detail is stated for the Azure models only, so I cannot credit the per-provider accounting that would score higher. 4 5 7 9 10
The Works Council Member
Training exclusion is written into the contract, not just marketing: the terms state Langdock engages model providers only under agreements barring them from training on customer content, and for the Azure models abuse-monitoring storage and human review by Microsoft are disabled under zero data retention. Admins set the chat retention period themselves, file retention is documented per storage location, a data processing agreement is concluded automatically with 30-day post-termination deletion, and ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II reports are published. We found no public information on a deletion audit trail or on abuse-monitoring terms with the other model providers, which keeps this short of a full account. 4 5 7 9 10
The Skeptic
The binding terms state that neither Langdock nor any model provider it engages may train on customer content, the DPA is auto-concluded with deletion no later than 30 days after termination, and admins can set the chat retention period, with per-object deletion behaviour documented in the help pages. Zero-data-retention is evidenced for the Azure-hosted models' abuse monitoring, but I found no public information on abuse-monitoring or zero-retention terms for the OpenAI, Google or AWS models, nor an audit trail for deletions — the published SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certificates lift this above a contract-only story, but not to the top. 4 5 7 9 10
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
This is the model story I want for a regulated rollout: model-agnostic access to 40+ models, EU-only processing by default with global inference only when a customer actively selects such models, third-country transfer only on controller instruction written into the DPA, and bring-your-own-key plus dedicated own-cloud and on-premises deployments. A published per-model inference-region list and open-weight self-hosted models we found no public information on. 3 4 5 7 9 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Every model provider I want named — Azure, AWS, Google Cloud, OpenAI Ireland — appears with its region, EU-only inference is the default, and processing outside the EU happens only if we actively choose a global model, with data at rest staying in EU data centres regardless. Bring-your-own-key plus managed, own-cloud and on-premises deployment are documented, and the DPA commits processing to the EU or EEA. I found no public information confirming that the EU-only switch demonstrably covers connector traffic and agent tool calls, not just chat inference. 5 7 9 11 4 12
The Automation Lead
EU-only processing is the default and inference leaves the EU only if a customer actively selects a global-deployment model, with data at rest still held in EU data centres and Frankfurt hosting under the Azure EU Data Boundary documented. Forty-plus models are offered across named providers, bring-your-own-key locks a workspace to only customer-configured models, and single-tenant, own-cloud and on-prem (Kubernetes via Helm) deployments are documented from 2,000 to 5,000 seats. A published per-model inference-region table and open-weight or self-hosted model support are not documented on the captured pages. 4 5 7 11
The Customer-Service Director
The platform is model-agnostic with 40-plus models, EU-only inference is the default with global-deployment models an explicit customer choice whose data at rest still stays in EU data centres, hosting runs on Azure in Frankfurt with the EU Data Boundary, and bring-your-own-key plus own-cloud or on-premises deployment are documented — the latter from 5,000 seats, far beyond my forty. Per-model inference regions are not published, so an admin cannot verify each model's processing location from the public pages. 4 5 7 11 12
The Works Council Member
EU-only processing is the default and leaving the EU requires an active customer choice, with hosting in Frankfurt on Microsoft Azure under the EU Data Boundary and data at rest staying in EU data centres even for global models — commitments that sit in the data processing agreement, not only on a marketing page. Bring-your-own-key is documented so the workspace runs only on customer-configured models, and own-cloud or on-premises deployment is offered from 5,000 seats. We found no public information stating the inference region for each of the forty-plus available models individually. 4 5 7 9 11
The Skeptic
Forty-plus models are reachable through one API with public per-token prices, EU-only processing is the default and non-EU inference happens only when an admin actively selects a model with global deployment, and bring-your-own-key, single-tenant, own-cloud and on-prem deployments are documented with seat minimums. The residency commitment sits in the DPA — processing generally within the EU or EEA — rather than only on a marketing page, and even global models keep data at rest in EU data centres. I found no public information listing the inference region for every individual model, or on open-weight or self-hosted models, which is what keeps this off the top step. 3 4 5 7 9 11 12
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
SAML 2.0 with any identity provider, signed requests and domain verification, SCIM named on the Business plan, role-based access control with custom roles and group grants, IP restrictions, usage analytics togglable per workspace with CSV and API export, a governance console to review, approve or disable agents with compliance checks on every new version, and mirrored permissions that reflect source-tool access 1:1 — which answers my SharePoint concern directly. We found no public information on an exportable or SIEM-streamable audit log, which my SOC will want before eight hundred seats. 3 4 9 11 13 14
The Data Protection Officer
SAML 2.0 with any compatible identity provider, SCIM, role-based access control, IP restrictions, and a governance module where admins review, approve, flag or disable agents against EU AI Act and GDPR rule templates — this is genuinely operable by IT. Retrieval mirrors the source system's permissions one-to-one, and usage analytics with CSV and API export can be disabled at workspace level. I found no public information on exportable audit logs or streaming to a SIEM, which is what holds this below the highest marks. 13 14 3 4 11 9
The Automation Lead
SAML 2.0 SSO with any compatible identity provider, SCIM, signed authn requests, domain verification, enforced MFA at the identity provider and IP restrictions give IT real control, and retrieval mirrors source-tool permissions one to one so an agent cannot read beyond its user. Usage analytics can be enabled or disabled per workspace with CSV and API exports of cost and token data. The governance module lets admins review, approve, flag or disable agents with compliance rules re-checked on every published version; we found no public information on exportable audit logs or streaming to a SIEM. 3 4 9 13 14
The Customer-Service Director
SAML 2.0 single sign-on with any identity provider and SCIM ship on the business plan, role-based access control and IP restrictions exist, retrieval mirrors the source tool's permissions one-to-one, and the governance console lets admins review, approve, flag or disable agents with automated compliance checks on every new version, plus usage analytics exportable as CSV or via API. I found no public information on exportable audit logs of admin and user actions, which is the first thing my security team will ask for. 3 4 9 11 13 14
The Works Council Member
SAML 2.0 with any compatible identity provider, SCIM on the business tier, role-based access control, mirrored source-tool permissions and a governance module where admins review, approve, flag or disable agents against automated compliance rules that check configuration rather than what people say in chats — and usage analytics can be switched off per workspace, with usage exports by CSV and API. For my side of the table the gaps matter: we found no public information on exportable audit logs, data-loss prevention, prompt-logging rules set out in writing, or usage reporting that can be aggregated or pseudonymised for a works-council agreement. 3 4 7 11 13 14
The Skeptic
SAML 2.0 with any compatible identity provider, SCIM, role-based access control, IP restrictions, mirrored source-tool permissions in integrations, workspace-toggleable analytics with CSV and API usage export, and a governance module that reviews, approves, flags or disables agents with automated compliance checks on every agent update — that is a real admin surface. I found no public information on exportable audit logs, DLP or content-filter policies, or streaming logs to a SIEM, which is what a regulated IT department will ask for at a thousand seats. 3 4 9 11 13 14
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
Open protocols are first-class: a directory of 79 verified MCP servers, custom MCP servers with several OAuth types, discovered tools converted into actions with confirmation flows, an MCP Apps SDK across major frameworks, and A2A agent communication, alongside a unified API, Outlook and Excel add-ins, Zapier reach, and agents usable in Slack and Teams. We found no public information on incremental connector sync or source citations on grounded answers. 2 4 7 15 16
The Data Protection Officer
The connector story is MCP-first: a curated directory of 79 official remote servers, any custom MCP server connectable with OAuth or API key, MCP Apps rendering interactive interfaces in a sandboxed iframe, A2A protocol support, more than 7,000 apps via Zapier, an open unified API, and agents reachable from Slack, Teams, Excel and Outlook. Integration permissions mirror the source tool one-to-one. I found no public information on sync behaviour, webhooks, or source citations on grounded answers. 15 16 2 4 7
The Automation Lead
MCP is first-class: a directory of 79 officially operated remote servers, custom MCP servers connectable with OAuth 2.0 or API-key auth, MCP tools surfaced as actions with confirmation flows, MCP Apps rendering interactive UI in a sandboxed iframe in chat, an agent-to-agent protocol, plus a unified API, native connectors, Office add-ins, desktop and mobile apps and Zapier reach into 7,000 apps. We found no public information on incremental sync behaviour, webhooks, or source citations on grounded answers, which I need before pointing this at ERP and CRM flows. 2 4 15 16
The Customer-Service Director
MCP support is first-class — a directory of 79 verified, officially operated remote servers, custom MCP servers with OAuth or API-key auth, an apps extension with a JavaScript SDK, agent-to-agent protocol, a ServiceNow reference implementation for creating records and Zapier reaching 7,000-plus apps — alongside Outlook and Excel add-ins and agents usable from Slack and Teams. I found no public information on connector sync behaviour, on source citations for grounded answers, or on contact-centre or telephony integration, and the last is what my queue lives on. 2 3 7 15 16
The Works Council Member
MCP support is unusually deep: a curated directory of 79 officially operated remote servers, custom servers connectable with OAuth or API keys, sandboxed interactive apps with confirmation gates, the A2A protocol, native connectors for document management, email, communication tools and ticketing, plus Zapier reach into over 7,000 apps, Excel and Outlook add-ins, mobile apps and a unified model API. We found no public information on source citations for grounded answers, on sync frequency or completeness, or on exporting agents and configuration when a customer leaves. 2 7 15 16
The Skeptic
The MCP support is unusually deep: a directory of 79 officially operated remote servers, connection of any custom MCP server with OAuth or API-key authentication, MCP apps rendered in a sandboxed iframe with confirmation gates and loggable JSON-RPC, plus the A2A protocol, Zapier with 7,000 apps, Slack and Teams, Excel and Outlook add-ins, and a documented API priced per token. I found no public information on connector sync behaviour or frequency, on source citations for grounded answers, or on webhooks for embedding assistants in other tools. 2 3 4 15 16
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 act through integration actions and workflows, with human confirmation on action nodes, approve/reject and form input nodes that pause runs, scheduling outside the builder, publish-and-draft versioning with a build-and-test mode, and per-agent instructions, analytics, costs and history visible in governance with automated checks on every published version. Fair-use limits and a stated no-warranty position on AI outputs are documented; evaluation against defined test sets before release we found no public information on. 2 3 7 14 17 18
The Data Protection Officer
Agents act through integration actions and MCP tools with confirmation flows, a working folder they may write to only with edit access, and workflow action nodes that run only after human confirmation, with approval configurable per run through conditions. The builder publishes versioned drafts with a test conversation beside it, and governance records a pass-or-fail compliance check on every published version with per-agent analytics, costs and history visible. I found no public information on evaluation against test sets before release or on attribution of each action to the person who deployed the agent. 17 18 14 2 3
The Automation Lead
This is what I look for: action nodes with human confirmation so nothing is sent without approval, workflow pauses with approve, reject and form input, conditions so only some runs need a person, a workflow monitor for pending steps, and a builder test toggle with test runs that skip notifications. Agents get versioned publishing where later edits stay drafts until published, scheduling, scoped write folders, subagents, Slack and Teams channels, and a governance view exposing each agent's instructions, integrations, costs and history with the power to disable it until fixed. Evaluation against defined test sets and documented failure handling beyond a general output disclaimer are not documented. 2 14 17 18
The Customer-Service Director
Agents attach skills, integration actions, workflows and subagents, act under human confirmation configured per action node with approve, reject and form input steps, run on triggers and schedules, and ship through a build-and-test toggle with versioned publication, automated governance checks on each version and per-agent analytics and cost visibility, plus published disclaimers and EU AI Act use limits. Before I go live I need evaluation against a test set and handover of a conversation to a human with its full context; I found no public information on either. 2 7 14 17 18
The Works Council Member
This is where my checklist is largely satisfied: workflow action nodes run only after human confirmation, approvals can be conditional so only some runs need a person, agents publish in versions with edits held as drafts, and governance records a pass or fail on every new agent version while showing each agent's instructions, integrations, costs and history. A build-and-test toggle, per-agent cost and analytics monitoring, and a published statement that AI output may be inaccurate and is not warranted give documented limits. We found no public information on evaluation against test sets or on attributing every run to the agent and the person who deployed it. 2 7 14 17 18
The Skeptic
Agents run multi-step workflows of up to 2,000 steps with action nodes gated by human confirmation, approve/reject/form user-input nodes, conditional approvals so only some runs need a person, a workflow monitor for pending steps, and a builder with a test toggle and published versions with drafts in between; governance adds per-agent costs, history and pass/fail compliance checks on each new version. I found no public information on evaluation against test sets, staged rollout, or a vendor statement of what agents must not be trusted with — the terms disclaim output accuracy and bar AI-Act high-risk uses, which is not the same as an operator's warning. 2 3 14 17 18
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
Langdock GmbH registered in Berlin, exclusive jurisdiction Berlin, hosting in Frankfurt on Microsoft Azure with the EU Data Boundary, a published subprocessor list naming AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and OpenAI Ireland with locations, Sentry for error tracking under Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses, EU-only inference by default with third-country transfer only on customer instruction, and an auto-concluded DPA with export and 30-day deletion documented. We found no public information on the ownership or parent-company situation, which keeps this short of the top level. 5 6 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
Langdock GmbH of Berlin is the contracting entity, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt, and every subprocessor is published with its location — the model providers Azure, AWS, Google Cloud and OpenAI Ireland all listed with EU regions, with 14 days' notice and an objection right before any change. EU inference is available, and third-country processing occurs only on our instruction, backed by standard contractual clauses in the DPA. The model providers remain US companies operating EU regions, and Sentry processes error data in the US under the Data Privacy Framework, so this is not sovereign end to end. 5 6 7 9
The Automation Lead
Langdock GmbH in Berlin (registered under HRB 254499) is the contracting entity under German law with exclusive jurisdiction in Berlin, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt with the EU Data Boundary, and a published subprocessor list names every model provider with its location, including OpenAI Ireland, AWS, Google Cloud and Azure, plus Sentry in the US covered by SCCs and Data Privacy Framework safeguards. Transfers outside the EU happen only on the customer's instruction, and ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II certificates are published. We found no public information on the company's ownership structure, so I credit the dimensions the evidence proves. 5 6 7 9
The Customer-Service Director
Langdock GmbH of Berlin contracts under German law with Berlin as the place of jurisdiction, hosts on Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt with the EU Data Boundary, defaults to EU-only processing with transfers outside the EU only on the customer's instruction, and publishes its subprocessors with locations — OpenAI Ireland, Google Cloud and AWS in the EU — with a DPA concluded automatically and ISO 27001 and SOC 2 certificates downloadable. Sentry in the United States processes error and diagnostic data under Data Privacy Framework and standard-clause safeguards, and I found no public information on the company's ownership, so I cannot call it sovereign end to end. 5 6 7 9
The Works Council Member
The contracting entity is Langdock GmbH of Berlin, registered at the Charlottenburg local court, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt, and the subprocessor list is public with locations — OpenAI Ireland, Google Cloud, AWS and Azure all shown as EU, Sentry's error data processed in the EU under the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses, and any third-country model processing only on explicit customer instruction. A data processing agreement with export and 30-day deletion terms plus published ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II reports round out the picture. We found no public information on the ownership structure, which alone keeps this below the top level. 5 6 7 9
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Langdock GmbH of Berlin under German law with exclusive jurisdiction in Berlin, data is hosted on Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt with the EU Data Boundary enabled, and the published subprocessor list names every model provider with location — OpenAI Ireland, Google Cloud, AWS and Azure, all EU — plus Sentry in the US for error tracking under the Data Privacy Framework and contractual clauses; the DPA confines third-country transfers to explicit customer instruction. I found no public information on ownership or a parent company, and opting into global models routes inference to US data zones, so this is a well-evidenced EU setup, not sovereignty end to end. 5 6 7 9
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
For my seat count I can get most of the way there: "€23.20 Standard seat" and "€99.00 Business Max seat" per user per month excluding VAT with "5x more usage than Standard seat", governance at "€ 2.80 Per user / month (excl. VAT)" free until January 1, 2027, workflows from an included 2,500 runs to "€ 449.00 Per workspace / month (excl. VAT)" with 40,000 runs, per-token API prices, bring-your-own-key where you "pay Langdock only for the platform license", a 20% annual saving, and contract terms with termination notices and pro-rata mid-term additions. Enterprise is "Custom. Contact us", exact fair-use figures live in a separate policy, and we found no public information on overage rates, so the full annual cost is not computable from the pricing pages alone. 3 4 7 11 14
The Data Protection Officer
Seat prices are public — €23.20 for a standard seat and €99.00 for Business Max per user per month excluding VAT, with 20% off annual billing — alongside a governance add-on at €2.80 per user per month until January 2027, workflow tiers from an included 2,500 runs per month to €449.00 per workspace per month with 40,000 runs, and per-token API rates in euros. Minimums and terms are stated, from 1,000 users for custom enterprise pricing to 5,000 seats for own-cloud or on-premises deployment. What no buyer can compute is the fair-use limit in absolute terms or any overage pricing beyond the quotas, and the enterprise tier remains a sales conversation. 3 7 14
The Automation Lead
Public per-seat prices of €23.20 standard and €99.00 Business Max with 5x usage (both excluding VAT, 20% off annual), workflow tiers with 2,500 runs included and €449 per workspace per month for 40,000 runs, a €2.80 governance add-on free until January 1, 2027, and per-token API rates make most of an annual bill computable. The included usage quantity per seat rests on a fair-use policy rather than published numbers, overage is not priced, the exact governance add-on price varies by seat count without a published scale, and Enterprise pricing is on request. 3 7 11 14
The Customer-Service Director
Seat prices are public — €23.20 standard and €99.00 Business Max per user per month excluding VAT with 20% saved on annual billing — models are included with no usage-based costs for chat and agents, workflow tiers carry run counts (2,500 included, €449.00 per workspace per month for 40,000 runs) and API token rates are published per model. The enterprise tier is "Custom. Contact us", the fair-use quantities behind "5x more usage than Standard seat" are not on the captured pages, and the governance add-on's exact price after its free period until January 1, 2027 depends on seat count and billing cycle — so my CFO could forecast the standard seats but not the edges. 3 7 12 14
The Works Council Member
Seat prices are public — €23.20 per user per month standard and €99.00 Business Max with 5x more usage than Standard seat, save 20% on annual billing — alongside workflows at €449.00 per workspace per month for 40k workflow runs, a governance add-on at €2.80 per user per month free until January 1, 2027, per-token API rates, deployment minimums by seat count, and contract notice periods and renewal pricing in the published terms. What a buyer still cannot compute: the fair-use quantum behind a seat, overage rates ("contact us for higher limits"), and the Enterprise tier's custom price. 3 7 11
The Skeptic
The public numbers are specific: €23.20 per user per month for a Standard seat and €99.00 for a seat with five times the usage, €449.00 per workspace per month for 40,000 workflow runs, €2.80 per user per month for the governance add-on after its free period, per-token API rates, a 20% annual discount, and contract terms covering pro-rata seat additions, renewal at list price and 14-day termination notice. What blocks a full annual computation: the fair-use quantities behind the seat tiers are referenced but not shown, and single-tenant, own-cloud, on-prem and enterprise pricing is contact-us from 1,000 seats up. 3 4 7 11
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Langdock
Is Langdock European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Langdock as EU-Made.
Where does Langdock 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 Europe as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 26 Oct 2026.
Does Langdock have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Langdock?
As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Dust (3.5/5), 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 Dust (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Langdock 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, 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.
- 9 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
- 9 subprocessors 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (18)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page (agents) langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing page langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Trust center trust.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Legal notice langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Terms of service langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Privacy policy langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 17 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 18 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →