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 Works Council Member

Weighted verdict

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

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

Scored by The Works Council Member

Panel median The Works Council Member This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Works Council Member
Data use, training & retention 4 of 5 4 of 5
Models & processing location 4 of 5 4 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 3.5 of 5

Data use, training & retention

How this is scored

What happens to prompts, uploaded files, connected data and outputs: whether any of it trains a model (the vendor's or a model provider's), how long it is kept and where logs live, whether zero-retention is available, and whether a data processing agreement covers it.

0 — No statement on training or retention; the privacy policy is a website policy that does not cover the product.

3 — A general statement that business data is "not used for training", with no word on retention, on the model providers behind the product or on logs.

5 — Business data excluded from training by contract, retention periods stated for chats and files, and a DPA offered to business customers.

8 — No-training commitments stated for the vendor and every model provider it routes to, retention configurable by the admin (including deletion of chat history), zero-data-retention terms with the model providers named, and abuse-monitoring retention described.

10 — Data use fully accounted for: training, retention, logging and abuse monitoring stated per model provider, customer-controlled retention and deletion with an audit trail, outputs and connected data treated as customer data in the DPA, and an independent audit (SOC 2, ISO 27001 or ISO 42001) covering the product.

Report an error

The Works Council Member

Training 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

Report an error

Models & processing location

How this is scored

Which models sit behind the product and who runs them, where inference and storage happen, whether the customer can pin processing to the EU, choose or exclude model providers, bring its own model or key, or run the product in its own cloud or on premises.

0 — The models behind the product and the processing location are not stated.

3 — The model family is named, but where inference runs and through which provider (the model maker, a hyperscaler, the vendor) is unstated.

5 — Models and their providers named, with an EU processing option stated for storage and at least the default model.

8 — Each available model listed with provider and inference region, EU-only processing selectable by the admin and enforced across models, model providers excludable, and bring-your-own-key or own-cloud deployment documented.

10 — Processing fully under the customer's control and documented: EU-only or on-premises inference for every feature including agents and connectors, open-weight or self-hosted models supported, data flows per feature published, and a residency commitment in the contract rather than on a marketing page.

Report an error

The Works Council Member

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

Report an error

Admin, identity & access controls

How this is scored

What the IT department controls: SSO and SCIM provisioning, roles and groups, which models, agents and connectors each group may use, retrieval that respects the permissions of the source system, audit logs, usage reporting, and policies such as data-loss prevention — and whether reporting on staff use is scoped and documented.

0 — No admin features documented; accounts are individual sign-ups.

3 — A team workspace with an owner and member invitations, but no SSO, no roles and no audit log.

5 — SSO, admin and member roles, user management, and an admin view of usage.

8 — SAML/OIDC SSO with SCIM provisioning, group-based permissions for models, agents and connectors, retrieval that inherits source-system permissions, exportable audit logs, and usage analytics with documented scope.

10 — Governance a regulated company can operate: fine-grained policies (DLP, content filters, prompt and output logging rules), audit logs streamed to a SIEM, per-agent ownership and approval, usage reporting that can be aggregated or pseudonymised for works-council agreements, and every admin action logged.

Report an error

The Works Council Member

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

Report an error

Integrations, connectors & knowledge

How this is scored

How the product reaches company knowledge and systems: connectors to file stores, wikis, mail, CRM, ticketing and ERP, how fast and how completely they sync, the API, support for open protocols such as MCP, and how the assistant cites the sources it answers from.

0 — No integrations; users paste text or upload files one at a time.

3 — File upload and one or two connectors (for example a drive), with no API and no statement on sync or citations.

5 — A connector library covering the common file stores, wikis and collaboration tools, answers citing sources, and a documented API.

8 — Connectors to file stores, wikis, mail, CRM and ticketing with incremental sync, custom connectors or MCP support, an API and webhooks for embedding assistants and agents in other tools, and source citations on every grounded answer.

10 — The product sits in the company's systems: read and write connectors with documented scopes, MCP servers and clients, contact-centre or telephony integration where relevant, a knowledge layer that can be audited and corrected, and the data, agents and configuration exportable when the customer leaves.

Report an error

The Works Council Member

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

Report an error

Agent capabilities & guardrails

How this is scored

What an agent can actually do and where it stops: multi-step tasks, tool use and actions in other systems, scheduling and triggers, human approval before consequential actions, run logs, evaluation and testing before release, and the limits the vendor states rather than hides.

0 — No agents; the product is a chat window, whatever the marketing says.

3 — Saved prompts or custom assistants with instructions and files, but no actions in other systems and no run history.

5 — Agents that call tools or APIs and run multi-step tasks, built without code, with a log of each run.

8 — Agents that act in connected systems with scoped permissions, human approval configurable per action, triggers and schedules, test and evaluation tooling before release, and documented limits and failure handling.

10 — Agents a business can put in production and account for: versioning and staged rollout, evaluation against test sets, monitoring of quality and cost per agent, handover to a human with full context, every action attributable to the agent and the person who deployed it, and the vendor's own statement of what agents must not be trusted with.

Report an error

The Works Council Member

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where customer data is hosted, and who the subprocessors are — model providers above all, then hosting, search, telephony and email. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; for an AI product the model provider is a subprocessor, so a European interface over a non-European model counts as such.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors (including model providers) unnamed.

3 — A privacy policy exists, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the model providers behind the product are not named as subprocessors.

5 — EU hosting stated and an EU contracting entity, but prompts reach non-EU model providers or other subprocessors without a stated safeguard or EU region.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, every subprocessor listed with its location including model providers, EU inference available, and a DPA offered.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and model processing, every subprocessor European or optional, data export and deletion documented, and a security or certification statement published rather than implied.

Report an error

The Works Council Member

The contracting 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a company can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per seat, per agent, per conversation or per usage unit, what is included in each tier, usage limits and overage, which models, connectors or agents cost extra, minimum seats and term.

0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.

3 — A starting price or "from" figure exists, but usage limits, included models and what scales the cost are unclear.

5 — Prices per tier are public with the main inclusions, but usage limits, overage, agent runs or enterprise features (SSO, audit logs, EU processing) are unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with seat or usage units, usage limits and overage rates, add-ons listed, minimum seats and term stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of seats, agents or conversations, with every usage rate, model surcharge, add-on and support tier and the cancellation and data-return terms published.

Report an error

The Works Council Member

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

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 →