AI Agents & Assistants
nele.ai
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by GAL Digital GmbH · www.nele.ai
Compare with Langdock → 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.
nele.ai at a glance
- Vendor
- GAL Digital GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Germany 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 nele.ai 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. nele.ai is an AI assistant platform for companies from GAL Digital GmbH of Hungen, Germany, sold with a focus on data protection. 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
nele.ai is an AI assistant platform for companies from GAL Digital GmbH of Hungen, Germany, sold with a focus on data protection. Scores are strongest on sovereignty at 5–6: a published German contracting entity, a stated German server location on named infrastructure — Azure in Frankfurt, Hetzner in Germany — and a subprocessor list with locations. Data use and training holds at 4: AI providers are instructed in writing not to store user inputs or use them for training — expressly subject to the functions they make available — with log files capped at 30 days. Weakest are pricing transparency at 1–2, with only 'One license for all users' published, integrations and knowledge at 0–2, and agent capabilities at 0 — the product's AI Agents & Assistants label aside, no public information on multi-step tasks, approvals or run logs. Judges split sharply on admin and access: three score 4 on captured pages for single sign-on with SAML 2.0 and administrator knowledge bases; three score 1, finding no confirmed provisioning, roles or audit-log detail. Processing and models spans 2–4 over the same unnamed-model gap.
Speaks for it
- Contracting entity GAL Digital GmbH is published with register court Amtsgericht Gießen, register number HRB 8432, address and managing directors
- A German server location is stated, with Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt and Hetzner in Germany named for hosting
- The privacy policy instructs the AI providers in writing that user inputs may not be stored or used for training
- Log files are retained at most 30 days before deletion or anonymisation, with personal data deleted once its purpose ends
- Subprocessors are listed with locations, with the US services Stripe and Webflow under the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses
Held against it
- We found no public information naming the models or providers behind the assistant, even on captured pages dedicated to AI models and their providers
- No AI provider appears in the published subprocessor list, which covers hosting, email, cookie consent, shop data, payments and website services
- The no-training instruction is expressly conditional on the functions the AI providers make available
- The captured pricing page shows only the licensing statement 'One license for all users', with no price figures, tiers, usage limits or term
- We found no public information on a data processing agreement covering the assistant itself — the only one described covers the email provider Brevo
Best for
- You prioritise a European legal footing — German contracting entity, stated German hosting on named infrastructure, a published subprocessor list — and will ask the vendor directly about the model layer
- You need a written data-handling baseline — no-storage, no-training instructions to the AI providers and a 30-day cap on log files — before staff use an assistant
- You buy through direct negotiation, so unpublished prices and contract terms are questions for the vendor rather than blockers
Avoid if
- You must compute an annual cost from published figures before contact — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need an unconditional no-training guarantee — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You require the model provider to appear in the published subprocessor list before go-live — the list covers hosting, email, consent, shop, payment and website services
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Data use, training & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Models & processing location | 1 of 5 |
| Admin, identity & access controls | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations, connectors & knowledge | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 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
The privacy policy says user inputs are processed on the company's own servers and passed to AI providers only with the instruction that they may be neither stored there nor used for learning, qualified as subject to the functions the providers make available. Logfiles are kept for at most 30 days and personal data is deleted once its purpose or legal basis lapses, but I found no public information on retention periods for chats and files, zero-data-retention terms, or the terms of a data processing agreement for the assistant itself — the only processing agreement described covers the email vendor Brevo. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy notice states that inputs are processed on the vendor's own servers and that AI providers are instructed not to store user inputs or use them for learning, a commitment expressly 'subject to the functions made available by the providers' — and those providers are never named. Log files are retained at most 30 days and personal data is deleted once its purpose is fulfilled, but we found no retention periods for chats or uploaded files, and the only data processing agreement evidenced is the one offered by the email provider Brevo. 6
The Automation Lead
The privacy policy instructs the AI providers that user inputs may not be stored or used for training — framed as subject to the functions the providers make available — and states that logfiles are deleted or anonymised after at most 30 days and that personal data is deleted once its purpose ends; the vendor also claims GDPR conformity and ISO 27001 certification. Retention is stated for logs only, and beyond an agreement statement for the email service Brevo we found no public information on retention periods for chats and files, zero-retention terms with the model providers, or the terms of a data processing agreement covering the assistant itself. 4 6 7
The Customer-Service Director
The privacy policy instructs the AI providers that user inputs may not be stored with them or used for learning, though only subject to the functions those providers make available, and it states logfiles are kept at most 30 days before deletion or anonymisation with personal data deleted once the purpose ends. We found no public information naming the model providers, stating retention periods for chats and files, or confirming a data processing agreement for business customers — which my compliance team would demand before connecting ticket data. 6 4
The Works Council Member
The privacy policy puts in writing that user inputs may be neither stored at the AI providers nor used for learning, and caps log files at 30 days before deletion or anonymisation — a prompt-logging rule a works council can at least read. The no-training pledge is expressly conditional on the functions the providers make available, the providers behind the product are not named, and we found no public information on retention periods for chats and files or on a data processing agreement for business customers. A one-line claim of GDPR compliance and ISO 27001 certification on the legal notice is the only certification statement we hold. 4 6 7
The Skeptic
The privacy policy instructs AI providers that user inputs may not be stored or used for learning, a commitment the vendor itself hedges as subject to the functions providers make available, and no provider is named. Log files are capped at 30 days and deletion is promised when the purpose ends, but we found no public information on retention periods for chats and files or on a data processing agreement for business customers. 6 7
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
A German server location is stated, Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt and Hetzner in Germany are named for infrastructure, and the privacy policy says user inputs are processed on the vendor's own servers rather than sent directly to AI providers. Captured pages are dedicated to the AI models and their providers, but they confirm no model names, providers or inference regions to me, and I found no public information on pinning processing to the EU, excluding providers, or bringing my own key — the exact questions I would need answered before eight hundred staff use it. 4 6 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
A German server location is stated, with Azure in Frankfurt and Hetzner in Germany named as infrastructure providers, and user inputs are processed on the vendor's own servers. We found no public information on the models behind the assistant, their providers or the inference region, so the layer that actually generates the answers remains unattributed. 4 6
The Automation Lead
A German server location is published, hosting subprocessors are named as Hetzner in Germany and Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt, and the policy states that user inputs are processed on the vendor's own servers rather than sent directly to the AI providers. We found no public information on which models sit behind the assistant, who runs them, or on any administrator option to pin or restrict processing — even in the captured pages dedicated to AI models and their providers. 4 6 8 9
The Customer-Service Director
User inputs are processed on the vendor's own servers at a stated German location, with Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt and Hetzner in Germany named for hosting. We found no public information on which AI models sit behind the assistant or where their inference runs, so I cannot tell whether any prompt ever leaves the EU. 4 6
The Works Council Member
A German server location is stated, user inputs are processed on the vendor's own servers rather than sent directly to the AI providers, and hosting infrastructure is named as Azure in Frankfurt and Hetzner. What no captured page confirms is which models sit behind the product, who runs them, or where inference takes place — the pages on the vendor's AI models yielded no confirmed model names or providers, and no way for an admin to pin or restrict processing. 4 6 8 9
The Skeptic
A German server location is stated and the policy says prompts are processed on the vendor's own servers rather than sent directly to AI providers, but we found no public information on which models answer, through which provider, or where inference runs. The captured pages on the vendor's AI models and providers yielded no confirmed names. 4 6 8 9
Admin, identity & access controls
panel disagrees
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
A product page documents single sign-on with SAML 2.0 and another is written for administrators, which is where my interest starts for a rollout of this size. Beyond that I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, group-based permissions for models, agents and connectors, retrieval that inherits source-system permissions such as SharePoint's, or audit logs I could stream to the SIEM. 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages document only that users can create a user account and that one license covers all users. We found no public information on single sign-on, provisioning, roles and groups, permission-aware retrieval, audit logs or usage reporting. 4 6
The Automation Lead
The captured pages include a product function page on single sign-on with SAML 2.0 and an administrator section covering knowledge bases, and the privacy policy describes user account registration. We found no public information on roles and groups, SCIM provisioning, group-level permissions over models and knowledge sources, audit logs or usage reporting — exactly the controls I need before an assistant is let anywhere near company systems. 6 10 11
The Customer-Service Director
The captured pages include a page on single sign-on with SAML 2.0 and an administrator section on knowledge bases, and the privacy policy describes user account registration — a start for onboarding forty agents. We found no public information on roles and groups, automated provisioning, audit logs or usage reporting. 10 11 6
The Works Council Member
The captures confirm only that users can register individual accounts and that one licence covers all users; the pages on single sign-on and administrator functions yielded no confirmed details on provisioning, roles, group permissions, audit logs or usage analytics. For a works council, reporting on staff use that can be aggregated or pseudonymised is something we found no public information on. 4 6 10 11
The Skeptic
The only documented account mechanism is individual user registration; we found no public information confirming single sign-on, administrative roles, group permissions or audit logs, including on the captured pages addressing SAML 2.0 single sign-on and administrator knowledge bases. 6 10 11
Integrations, connectors & knowledge
n/r
n/r
n/r
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
The captured pages document knowledge bases with retrieval-augmented generation, so a company knowledge layer exists, but I found no public information on connectors to file stores, wikis, mail or ticketing, on sync behaviour, an API, or how answers cite their sources. Nothing here shows how the assistant would respect the permissions of a source system, which is non-negotiable for us. 11 12
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on connectors to file stores, wikis, mail or ticketing, on an API or open protocols such as MCP, or on how answers cite their sources. The homepage, the data-protection and security page and the knowledge-bases page we read describe none of this. 1 2 12
The Automation Lead
Function pages on knowledge bases and retrieval-augmented generation, including an administrator view, are part of the capture, so grounding answers in company knowledge is clearly part of the design. We found no public information on connectors to file stores, wikis, mail, CRM, ticketing or ERP, on sync behaviour, on an API or webhooks, on open protocols such as MCP, or on how answers cite their sources — the pieces I would need before wiring anything into ERP, CRM or the wiki. 11 12
The Customer-Service Director
Captured pages describe knowledge bases with retrieval-augmented generation and their administration, so some knowledge layer exists. We found no public information on connectors to ticketing or CRM systems, an API, sync behaviour, or how answers cite their sources — the connections my order and ticket workflows would depend on. 12 11
The Works Council Member not rated — no public information
We found no public information on connectors to file stores, wikis, mail or ticketing, on sync behaviour, on an API, or on how the assistant cites its sources. The captured pages name only back-office processors serving the vendor's own website and shop, not integrations of the product itself. 1 2 12
Agent capabilities & guardrails
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
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 not rated — no public information
We found no public information on agent capabilities. No captured page documents multi-step tasks, actions in other systems, approvals, run logs, testing or stated limits, and the product's category label alone is not capability evidence I can score. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on agents, multi-step tasks, actions in other systems, human approval, run logs or the vendor's stated limits. Nothing in the homepage, the security page or the terms of use we captured describes them. 1 2 5
The Automation Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on agent capabilities — multi-step tasks, tool use or actions in other systems, approval steps before consequential actions, run logs, or testing and evaluation before release. The homepage, the data protection and security page and the terms of use were among the pages we read. 1 2 5
The Customer-Service Director not rated — no public information
We found no public information on agent capabilities on the captured homepage, data-protection and terms pages — nothing on multi-step tasks, actions in ticketing or order systems, handover to a human with full context, or testing and evaluation before go-live. I cannot judge an AI agent for my contact-centre queues from this. 1 2 5
The Works Council Member not rated — no public information
We found no public information on multi-step agents, tool use, actions in other systems, human approval before consequential actions, or run logs. The product and terms-of-use pages captured give no confirmed details on what an agent can do, where it stops, or how its runs are accounted for. 1 2 5
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
The contracting entity is GAL Digital GmbH of Hungen, Germany (Amtsgericht Gießen, HRB 8432), a German server location is stated with Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt and Hetzner named for infrastructure, and the privacy policy lists subprocessors with locations — mostly German, plus Stripe and Webflow in the USA backed by the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses. For an AI product the decisive subprocessor is the model provider, and here the policy refers to AI providers while its subprocessor list covers hosting, email, cookie consent, shop data, payments and the website only, so where model processing happens is unconfirmed to me. Ownership is not documented in what I hold, so I score what is proven: a German entity on named German infrastructure with listed subprocessors, held short of full marks by the unnamed model layer. 4 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
European credentials are documented: GAL Digital GmbH in Hungen as contracting entity, a stated German server location on Azure in Frankfurt and Hetzner, a named data protection officer, and a published claim of GDPR conformity with ISO 27001 certification. The subprocessor list with locations is a real strength, but it covers hosting, email, consent, payment and website services — including Stripe and Webflow in the USA, covered by the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses — and no model provider appears in it. Without the model providers named as subprocessors, an EU inference commitment and a product data processing agreement, sovereign end-to-end use cannot be established. 4 6
The Automation Lead
The contracting entity is GAL Digital GmbH of Hungen, Germany, with register court, register number and managing directors published, hosting is stated as German on named infrastructure — Hetzner and Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt — and the privacy policy lists subprocessors with their locations, almost all German, with Stripe and Webflow in the USA under the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses. For an AI product the decisive subprocessor is the model provider, and we found no public information naming the providers behind the assistant or where their processing runs. The vendor claims GDPR conformity and ISO 27001 certification, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement covering the assistant itself. 4 6 7
The Customer-Service Director
The vendor is a German company registered at the Gießen court with a stated German server location, and it lists subprocessors with locations — Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt, Hetzner and Brevo in Germany — while US payment and website services are covered by the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses. For an AI product the model provider is the decisive subprocessor, and we found no public information naming it; the privacy policy says only that inputs are not sent directly to the AI providers. 4 6
The Works Council Member
GAL Digital GmbH is a German contracting entity registered at the local court in Gießen with a stated Made-in-Germany location, hosting is stated for Germany on named infrastructure (Azure Frankfurt, Hetzner), subprocessors are listed with their locations, and US transfers rest on the Data Privacy Framework plus standard contractual clauses. The decisive gap for staff data is that the AI providers processing the prompts are not named among the subprocessors, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement for customers. 4 6
The Skeptic
Contracting entity, register court, address and hosting are German, the hosting subprocessors are named with locations (Microsoft Azure in Frankfurt, Hetzner in Gunzenhausen), and the US services Stripe and Webflow are covered by Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses. But the policy itself says AI providers process user inputs and no AI provider appears in the subprocessor list, so for an AI product the subprocessor that matters most is unaccounted for. 4 6
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
A pricing page is published and the licensing model is stated as "One license for all users", but I found no public information confirming price figures, per-seat or usage costs, tier inclusions, usage limits or the pricing of enterprise features such as single sign-on. I cannot compute an annual cost for eight hundred seats from what is captured. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The only pricing-related statement we found is 'One license for all users'. We found no public price figures, tiers, usage limits, add-ons or contract terms on the captured pages, so a company cannot compute an annual cost from them. 3 4
The Automation Lead
The published statement is that one license covers all users — a cost unit, but no figures. We found no public information on what the license costs, which models or functions it includes, usage limits, overage, minimum seats or term, so an annual cost cannot be worked out from the pages we read. 3 4
The Customer-Service Director
The captured pages state a licensing model of "One license for all users", but show no price figures, tiers, usage limits or a per-conversation rate. My CFO could not forecast the annual cost of forty agents from what was captured. 3 4
The Works Council Member
The only pricing-related fact we hold is the licence statement "Eine Lizenz für alle Nutzer:innen" (one licence for all users); the captured pricing page yielded no confirmed figures for tiers, per-seat prices, usage limits or term. A works council asked to cost the tool cannot compute an annual price from public information in this form. 3 4
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about nele.ai
Is nele.ai European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies nele.ai as EU-Made.
Where does nele.ai 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 Germany as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 26 Oct 2026.
Does nele.ai have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to nele.ai?
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: nele.ai 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, Subprocessors, 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 84 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
- 39 compliance 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
- 17 legal 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
- 16 data 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
- 14 hosting 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
- 12 support 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
- 4 integrations 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 subprocessors 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Data protection and security page www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing page www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy policy www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Models & processing location — found from sitemap www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Models & processing location — found from sitemap www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap www.nele.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →