whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

Omnifact

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 Omnifact GmbH · omnifact.ai

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

Link to this page

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

Omnifact at a glance

Vendor
Omnifact 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 Omnifact 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Omnifact is an AI assistant and agent platform from Omnifact GmbH, aimed at the public sector and regulated industries. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 28 Oct 2026. all sources

Omnifact 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 2.5 of 5 2 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 3 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 4 of 5 4 of 5
Pricing transparency 2.5 of 5 2.5 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

A Data Processing Agreement under Art. 28 GDPR is a mandatory prerequisite of the contract, retention is configurable by the organisation's administrator, deletion of chats, users and organisations is technically implemented, and log retention periods (up to 30 days for log files, at least 90 days for append-only audit logs) are written down — that is the kind of written prompt-and-log rule a works council needs. However, we found no public statement on whether prompts, files or outputs train any model, the vendor's or a provider's, and that silence is not something I can accept on staff input. 4 5 6 7

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

The model providers are named — Azure OpenAI, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral and custom providers — administrators can set per-group routing including EU-only, deactivate providers per organisation and space, and bring-your-own-key, self-hosted models, own-cloud and on-premises deployment are all documented. The terms themselves disclose that technical reasons of the model providers may require server locations in the USA, and per-model inference regions are documented only for Gemini and Anthropic via Google Vertex in region europe-west, which keeps this from the top. 2 4 7 8 9

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 single sign-on with Microsoft Entra ID, organisation-wide two-factor enforcement, group permissions deciding which models and hosting regions each group may use, and append-only audit logs kept at least 90 days give IT genuine control, and usage analytics runs on anonymised, non-personal data with no tracking of individual users — the direction a works council wants. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, on export of audit logs to a security system, or on admin-side usage reports over individual staff activity. 6 7 8 11 13

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

The connector catalogue covers file stores, wikis, mail, CRM and ticketing — Jira, Confluence, SharePoint, Gmail, HubSpot among dozens — own databases and on-premises software attach via custom MCP servers, and Spaces are reachable through a REST API. Each integration is switched on by an admin once, employees connect their own accounts so existing source permissions carry over, and every write action waits for confirmation by default; we found no public information on webhooks or on citations shown for grounded answers. 2 13

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

Spaces let staff build custom agents from internal data, a web browsing agent exists, and agents act in connected systems under admin-approved integrations with — importantly for me — human confirmation before each write by default. We found no public information on per-run histories, triggers or schedules, or test and evaluation tooling, and the terms state that the accuracy of the software's evaluations is explicitly not part of the contracted service. 2 4 13

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 Omnifact GmbH in Frankfurt under German law, all customer data is processed in Azure Germany West Central with backups staying in Frankfurt, and the subprocessor list names Microsoft Germany in Munich, Mistral in Paris, Google Cloud EMEA in Dublin and Stripe Payments Europe with data processing agreements — model providers are treated as subprocessors, which is how it should be. Non-European providers such as Anthropic, Brave and Twilio Sendgrid remain on the list under standard contractual clauses, and the terms say US server locations may be needed for model providers, so this is strong but not sovereign end to end. 3 4 5 6 7

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

The Pro plan is published at €25 per user per month paid annually for teams up to 50 users, with €5 per user per month in pooled AI credits for premium models that expire monthly, a 10-day trial without credit card, and public contract terms including auto-renewal, annual price adjustment and a termination right on increases over 10%. The Enterprise tier is custom-priced on request, and we found no public information on the monthly Pro rate or on what premium usage beyond the pooled credits costs, so a real annual total is not computable from public pages alone. 2 4

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 Omnifact

Is Omnifact European?

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

Where does Omnifact 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 Omnifact have a free plan?

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

What are the best alternatives to Omnifact?

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

Sources (13)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Legal notice omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Models & processing location — found from sitemap omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Models & processing location — found from sitemap docs.omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap docs.omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap omnifact.ai Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →