whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

LightOn

EU-Made 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 LightOn SA · www.lighton.ai

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

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

LightOn at a glance

Vendor
LightOn SA
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Default not stated; pages mention France and 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 LightOn 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. LightOn's Paradigm is a French AI assistant platform that puts agents on a company's own documents. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 28 Oct 2026. all sources

LightOn 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 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Models & processing location 3 of 5 3 of 5
Admin, identity & access controls 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations, connectors & knowledge 3 of 5 3 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 2.5 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 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

The privacy policy commits in writing that prompts and completions are not used for training except on the customer's explicit written request, states retention periods for access logs, recordings, metrics and connection data, and offers a DPA on request, with stateless inference on LightOn-controlled compute nodes. The audit-log rules are the strongest part for a works council — configurable retention, 180 days by default, with automatic anonymisation after the period — but the same documentation states that model logs, task results and user chat history are neither deleted nor anonymised, and anonymisation only replaces values without removing rows. The captured pages state no retention period for the product's own conversations, which is precisely the point a works council would need settled in writing. 1 2

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

LightOn states that processing, including stateless inference on its own nodes, happens primarily in data centres in France or in Europe, lists model types through its API, and documents a self-hosted deployment option. We found no public information listing each individual model with its inference region, an administrator control that pins every feature to the EU, or provider exclusion and bring-your-own-key arrangements. 1 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 Works Council Member

SSO via SAML, OIDC and LDAP plus SCIM 2.0 provisioning tested with Microsoft Entra ID, group-based control over which agents, workspaces and datasources staff may use, per-datasource access control, and audit logs whose retention is configurable with automatic anonymisation — much of what a works council needs set out in writing. We found no public information on usage analytics for administrators, on export of audit logs, or on data-loss-prevention policies, and no documented way to aggregate or pseudonymise usage reporting for a works-council agreement. 2 4 5 6 7

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

Datasources sync external systems automatically without end-user intervention — Google Drive and ServiceNow are documented — with unified search across connected sources, native tools and MCP server support for agents, and a documented API. We found no public information on connectors for mail, wikis, CRM or ERP beyond these two, on sync frequency or completeness, or on how answers cite the sources they draw from. 3 6 7

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

Agents combine instructions, a chosen model, tools and MCP servers, run multi-step tasks of one to five consecutive tools, and are scoped to teams and workspaces, with team and company agents created only by administrators and ownership fixed at creation. My red line — a human approving an agent's consequential actions before they land on a colleague — is not addressed anywhere we looked: we found no public information on human approval, per-run logs, triggers, schedules, or evaluation and testing before an agent is released to staff. 7 8

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 LightOn SA of Paris, processing is stated to run primarily in France or in Europe on LightOn-controlled inference nodes, and the one named non-European subprocessor, Sentry, is wrapped in SCCs, a DPA, a relay filtering personal data before transmission, and masking of all text and media. The hosting providers themselves are described only as being in France or in Europe, and the full list of processors is available only on request through the DPA, so the chain cannot be verified from the public pages. 1

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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 not rated — no public information

We found no public information on pricing in the legal, API, product and user-guide pages we read — no seat prices, tiers, usage limits, agent or connector charges, minimums or terms. A company cannot compute an annual cost from these pages. 1 3 6 8

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 1 Report an error

Questions about LightOn

Is LightOn European?

Yes. whats-best.ai classifies LightOn as EU-Made.

Where does LightOn 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 France and Europe as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 26 Oct 2026.

Does LightOn have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to LightOn?

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: LightOn 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 LightOn? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (8)

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

  1. 1 Privacy policy developers.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap docs.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap docs.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.lighton.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →