whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

Langdock

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

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

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

Langdock alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has read "European AI" on a wrapper that sends every prompt to a US model, "agents" that are saved prompts, and "we never train on your data" with no word on the model provider behind it. Asks which model answers, where it runs, what it may do unsupervised, and what a thousand seats cost.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic 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 Skeptic
Data use, training & retention 4 of 5 4 of 5
Models & processing location 4 of 5 4.5 of 5
Admin, identity & access controls 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations, connectors & knowledge 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 4 of 5 4 of 5
European sovereignty 4 of 5 4 of 5
Pricing transparency 3.5 of 5 4 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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 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

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 Langdock? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (18)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page (agents) langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Pricing page langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security page langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Trust center trust.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Legal notice langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Terms of service langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Privacy policy langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.langdock.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →