AI Agents & Assistants
Parloa
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Parloa GmbH · www.parloa.com
Compare with PolyAI → 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.
Parloa at a glance
- Vendor
- Parloa GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Parloa 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Parloa GmbH, Berlin-registered, sells an AI agent platform for customer service on phone and chat. 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
Parloa GmbH, Berlin-registered, sells an AI agent platform for customer service on phone and chat. Agent capabilities is strongest, scores clustering at 8: no-code agents built from SOPs, caller authentication before account actions, simulation and A/B testing before live traffic, per-conversation drift detection, and context-carrying warm handoffs. Data use and training is the weakest finding at 0 to 2 — we found no public statement on whether conversations train a model, on retention, or on a data processing agreement. Admin and access sits at 4: central agent management, column-level access policies and audited queries are documented, while single sign-on and provisioning are not. Integrations and knowledge scores span 4 to 6 — lower ones weighing undocumented sync behaviour, source citations and open protocols, higher ones crediting connectors into CCaaS, CRMs and telephony. Sovereignty scores 5-6: Azure with a Germany-hosted stamp, Zones keeping transcripts, PII and analytics inside the chosen region, but models hosted by OpenAI or Azure and no subprocessor list or DPA captured. The captured pricing page shows no figures; booking a demo is the route.
Speaks for it
- Agents are built without code from natural-language briefings or existing SOPs, with blueprint updates propagating fleet-wide
- Voice agents must authenticate the caller before acting on an account
- Performance Lab simulates dozens of failure scenarios and A/B tests versions before live callers, with per-conversation tracing and drift detection after launch
- Zones deployments keep transcripts, personally identifiable information, analytics and the services that process them inside the chosen regional boundary, on Azure with a Germany-hosted stamp
- Published certifications include ISO 27001:2022, ISO 17442:2020, SOC 2 Type I & II, PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR and DORA
Held against it
- Data use and training scores run 0 to 2, with no public statement on whether conversations train a model, on retention periods, or on a data processing agreement
- We found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, admin roles, or exportable audit logs for staff
- Models are hosted by OpenAI or Azure, non-European providers, and no subprocessor list with locations or data processing agreement was captured
- We found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, MCP support, connector sync frequency, or how grounded answers cite their sources
- We found no public information on configurable human approval before consequential agent actions
Best for
- You run a contact centre and want voice and chat agents that authenticate callers before account actions and hand off with full context
- You need pre-launch simulation and A/B testing plus per-conversation drift monitoring before agents touch live callers
- Your legal team wants a provable regional boundary for transcripts, PII and analytics, with a Germany-hosted Azure stamp
- You want to connect existing CCaaS platforms, CRMs and telephony while keeping current contracts in place
Avoid if
- Your procurement rules out non-European model providers or requires a committed EU inference path — the platform names OpenAI or Azure as its model hosts
- Your data protection review requires a published subprocessor register with locations and a data processing agreement before shortlisting — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need published prices to forecast cost before engaging sales — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Data use, training & retention | 1 of 5 |
| Models & processing location | 3 of 5 |
| Admin, identity & access controls | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations, connectors & knowledge | 3 of 5 |
| Agent capabilities & guardrails | 4 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3 of 5 |
Data use, training & retention
n/r
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
Before I can put this in front of staff, I need to tell them what happens to their conversations, and we found no public statement on whether conversation data trains a model, on retention periods, or on a data processing agreement. What is documented is that transcripts, personally identifiable information and analytics stay inside the chosen regional deployment, and GDPR appears in the certification list — that is where the evidence stops. 6 7 13
The Data Protection Officer
Across the captured pages I found no statement on whether prompts, transcripts or outputs are used to train any model, and no retention period for conversations, files or logs — a trust center and a terms-and-policies page exist, but nothing captured from them covers this. The only data-use facts are audit trails that capture every AI query with field, customer and timestamp for GDPR accountability, which is logging, not a training or retention commitment. 6 12
The Automation Lead
We found no public information on whether prompts, transcripts or connected data train any model, on retention periods, or on a data processing agreement. What is documented is regional confinement of transcripts and PII and audit trails capturing every data-lake query with field, customer and timestamp — that covers logs and locality, but the training and retention picture is undocumented. 7 12 13
The Customer-Service Director
Across the pages I read there is no statement on whether conversations train a model, how long transcripts and files are kept, or whether a data processing agreement covers the platform. The only related facts are that transcripts, personally identifiable information and analytics stay inside the chosen regional boundary and that every AI-initiated data-lake query is logged with field, customer and timestamp — my DPO still has nothing on retention or a DPA. 7 12
The Works Council Member
We found no public statement that prompts, transcripts or connected data are kept out of model training, no retention periods and no data processing agreement; what is documented is that transcripts, personal data and analytics stay inside a chosen regional boundary, that every AI query against the data lake is logged, and that models come only from subcontractors under signed contract. 6 7 8 12
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on whether conversations, transcripts, uploaded content or analytics train any model, on how long any of it is kept, or on whether a data processing agreement covers the product. The captured terms, privacy and security-governance pages yield no statement on this, and the certifications list names GDPR without describing data use or retention. 6 3 13
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
The platform runs on Microsoft Azure with a Germany-hosted deployment and regional choice through its Zones architecture, and the model hosts are named as OpenAI or Azure, with model availability verified per region and only models from contracted subprocessors admitted. We found no public information listing the individual models with their inference regions, on an admin-enforced EU-only setting across models, or on bring-your-own-key or own-cloud deployment. 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The platform runs on Microsoft Azure with a stamp hosted in Germany, and the Zones deployment keeps transcripts, personally identifiable information, analytics and the services that process them inside the chosen regional boundary, with model availability verified per region; models are hosted by OpenAI or Azure, and only models from subprocessors under signed contracts may enter the platform. We found no public information on a per-model list with inference regions, on excluding a provider, or on bring-your-own-key or own-cloud deployment. 7 8
The Automation Lead
Parloa runs on Microsoft Azure with a Germany-hosted regional stamp and a United States one, and Zones deployments keep transcripts, PII and analytics plus the services that process them inside the chosen regional boundary. Models come from OpenAI or Azure with availability verified per region, and a model must pass a benchmark gate before it can be built on; we found no public information on excluding specific providers, pinning processing per policy, or bringing your own model or key. 7 8
The Customer-Service Director
The platform runs on Microsoft Azure with a Germany-hosted stamp, and regional deployment keeps transcripts, PII, analytics and the services that process them inside the chosen region, with model availability verified per region for models hosted by OpenAI or Azure. What I cannot see is a list of the individual models with their inference regions, whether I can exclude a provider, or any bring-your-own-key or on-premises option. 7 8
The Works Council Member
OpenAI and Azure are named as the model hosts, the platform runs on Azure with a German regional instance, and regional deployments keep conversation data and the services that process it inside the chosen boundary with model availability verified per region; a per-model list with inference regions, provider exclusion or bring-your-own-key is not documented. 7 8
The Skeptic
Model hosting is attributed to OpenAI or Azure, the platform runs in regional Azure stamps including one hosted in Germany, and the regional deployment model keeps transcripts, personal data and analytics inside the chosen boundary with per-region model availability verified. We found no public information on which specific models sit behind the product, on admin-level pinning of processing to the EU, on excluding a provider, or on bring-your-own-key deployment. 7 8
Admin, identity & access controls
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
There is real governance here: a single central place to manage every agent, audit trails that capture each AI-initiated data query with the field, customer and timestamp for GDPR accountability, and column-level access policies limiting what an agent may read. But the identity plane my eight-hundred-seat deployment hinges on is where the pages go quiet — we found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, admin and member roles, or exporting audit logs to our SIEM. 7 12
The Data Protection Officer
Documented governance is a single central place to manage every agent, column-level access policies that restrict an agent to the fields a given use case justifies, and audit trails capturing every AI-initiated query with field, customer and timestamp for accountability requests. We found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, roles, or group-based permissions governing which models, agents and connectors each group may use. 7 12
The Automation Lead
Governance leans on a single central place to manage every agent, column-level access policies that restrict an agent to the fields a use case justifies, and audit trails for AI-initiated queries, with analytics computed and stored in the region. We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, role or group administration, exportable audit logs, or the scope of usage reporting on staff. 7 12 13
The Customer-Service Director
There is a single place to manage every agent, column-level access policies that restrict the agent to the fields a use case justifies, and audit trails capturing every data-lake query with field, customer and timestamp — genuine governance of what the agent may touch. On the IT side we found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, roles and groups, or exportable audit logs and usage reporting for staff use. 7 12 13
The Works Council Member
Agent management is centralised, agent data access is restricted by column-level policies, and every AI query is captured with field, customer and timestamp for accountability requests; we found no public information on single sign-on, user provisioning, admin roles, or how any reporting on staff use is scoped and documented. 7 12 13
The Skeptic
Governance machinery is documented in pieces: an audit trail capturing every agent data query with field, customer and timestamp, column-level access policies that restrict what an agent may read per use case, data-residency enforcement across region-agnostic call routing, and a single place to manage every agent. We found no public information on single sign-on, user provisioning, roles and groups, or how staff usage is reported and scoped. 12 7 13
Integrations, connectors & knowledge
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 connector story covers the contact-centre stack: CRMs, knowledge sources and telephony, integration with existing CCaaS platforms and backend systems via custom APIs and integration-capable connectors, retrieval over an indexed policy and knowledge base, and CRM plus data-lake queries. We found no public information on source citations on grounded answers, sync behaviour, a documented public API and webhooks, or open protocols such as MCP. 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Agent Skills connect CRMs, knowledge sources, telephony and other enterprise systems, configured once for the whole fleet, with governed integration across CCaaS platforms and backend systems via custom APIs, and retrieval against a pre-processed vector database of embedded policy content. We found no public information on source citations on answers, a documented product API or webhooks, support for open protocols such as MCP, or how often connectors sync. 12 13
The Automation Lead
Agent Skills connect CRMs, knowledge sources and telephony configured once for the whole fleet, integrations reach existing CCaaS platforms and backend systems via custom APIs while keeping current contracts in place, and retrieval runs over a pre-processed vector database of policy and knowledge content, with a BI export hub for sharing signals outward. We found no public information on MCP support, a documented public API with webhooks, sync cadence, or how answers cite their sources. 12 13
The Customer-Service Director
The integration story fits a contact centre: connectors to CRMs, knowledge sources and telephony, integration with CCaaS platforms and backend systems via custom APIs and integration-capable connectors that keep our existing contracts, plus retrieval-augmented answers over indexed policy content and CRM and data-lake fields pulled at call connect. We found no public information on a documented public API or webhooks, MCP support, sync frequencies, or how answers cite their sources. 12 13
The Works Council Member
Governed connectors to contact-centre platforms, CRMs and backend systems, telephony and chat channels, and retrieval over a pre-processed knowledge index plus CRM and data-lake fields, configured once for the whole agent fleet; incremental sync behaviour, open protocols such as MCP, and source citations on grounded answers are not documented. 12 13
The Skeptic
Connectors reach CRMs, knowledge sources, telephony and existing CCaaS platforms while keeping current contracts in place, with pre-conversation retrieval across CRM and data-lake fields and retrieval-augmented answers over an indexed knowledge base. We found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, open protocols such as MCP, or how fast and how completely sources sync. 12 13
Agent capabilities & guardrails
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
This is the strongest area: no-code agents built from SOPs with change history on every edit, subtask splitting with deterministic routing, simulations and A/B testing across dozens of failure scenarios before anything reaches live callers, always-on per-conversation tracing with drift detection, caller authentication before account actions, scope limits, column-level data restrictions, and a warm handoff carrying transcript, intent, CRM changes and authentication state. We found no public information on configurable human approval per action, scheduled triggers, or per-agent quality and cost monitoring. 8 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Agents act in connected systems with column-scoped permissions, must authenticate a caller before acting on an account, and hand over to a human with the transcript, classified intent, CRM record changes, authentication state and a sentiment read. They are tested before release in a simulation lab across dozens of failure scenarios with A/B comparison, monitored per conversation with drift detection, and held to scope limits with warm transfer; we found no public information on configurable human approval per action, on schedules or triggers, or on per-agent cost monitoring. 8 12 13
The Automation Lead
This is the strongest area: agents authenticate the caller before acting on an account, change CRM records, operate under scope limits and column-level permissions, and hand off with transcript, classified intent, authentication state and sentiment; Performance Lab simulates dozens of failure scenarios and A/B tests versions before live callers, Lens gives per-conversation tracing and drift detection, and every design edit carries change history with blueprint updates propagating fleet-wide. We found no public information on configurable human approval before consequential actions or on scheduled triggers. 8 12 13
The Customer-Service Director
This is close to what I buy for: agents built without code from existing SOPs, subtask routing, caller authentication before any account action, and a warm handoff that carries the transcript, classified intent, CRM record changes, authentication state and a sentiment read to my human agent. The Performance Lab runs simulations and A/B tests before anything reaches live callers and per-conversation tracing catches drift afterwards; we found no public information on configurable human approval per action or the vendor's own statement of what agents must not be trusted with. 12 13
The Works Council Member
Agents are built without code from blueprints, tested in simulations across dozens of failure scenarios and A/B runs before live callers, monitored per conversation with drift detection, scoped to the data fields a use case justifies, and handed to a human with the transcript, intent, authentication state and CRM changes; what we did not find is a configurable human approval before consequential actions or the vendor's own statement of what agents must not be trusted with. 8 12 13
The Skeptic
Agents are built from one blueprint without code, split into subtasks with deterministic routing, must authenticate a caller before acting on an account, and hand over to a human with transcript, intent, authentication state and CRM changes carried along. Simulation across dozens of failure scenarios and A/B testing precede live traffic, every conversation is traced with drift detection, and model changes pass a benchmark gate with calibrated judging and published known limits. We found no public information on scheduled triggers or configurable human approval per action. 13 12 8
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 legal notice gives a German contact and refuses consumer arbitration board proceedings, and the platform runs on Azure with a Germany-hosted regional deployment where transcripts, personal data, analytics and the services that process them stay inside the regional boundary. The models are hosted by OpenAI or Azure — non-European companies — and we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations, a data processing agreement, or an explicit commitment that model inference happens in the EU. 5 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is a Berlin-registered German company with a German imprint, hosting is on Microsoft Azure including a Germany-hosted stamp where transcripts, personal data and analytics stay inside the regional boundary, and the model providers are named — OpenAI or Azure — under signed contracts with per-region availability verification. For an AI product the model provider is a subprocessor that must be listed with its region, and we found no public information on a published subprocessor register, a data processing agreement, or the company's ownership. 5 7 8
The Automation Lead
The contracting entity is Parloa GmbH in Berlin, hosting runs on Microsoft Azure with a Germany-hosted stamp, and certifications include ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR. The model layer is OpenAI or Azure — non-European providers — under signed contracts with per-region availability verification and Zones keeping processing services inside the regional boundary; we found no public information on a full subprocessor list with locations or a data processing agreement. 5 7 8 13
The Customer-Service Director
Parloa is a Berlin-registered company running on named Azure infrastructure with a Germany-hosted stamp, and it publishes ISO 27001:2022, SOC 2 Type I & II, PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR and DORA among its certifications. Model providers appear only as OpenAI or Azure, available in the platform only from subprocessors under signed contracts, but no subprocessor list with locations and no data processing agreement were captured on the pages I read. 5 7 8 13
The Works Council Member
The vendor is a German company publishing a German legal notice, hosting runs on Azure with a German regional instance where transcripts and personal data stay inside the regional boundary, and OpenAI and Azure are named as model hosts under signed contracts, with certifications including ISO 27001 and SOC 2 published; a subprocessor list with locations and a data processing agreement are not documented in the captured pages. 5 7 8 13
The Skeptic
The vendor is a German-registered company, hosting runs on Azure with a stamp hosted in Germany, and the regional deployment model keeps transcripts and personal data inside the chosen region even when the CCaaS routing is region-agnostic. But the models come from OpenAI or Azure, which are non-European providers, and we found no public information on a full subprocessor list with locations, a data processing agreement, or a committed EU inference path. 5 7 13
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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 was captured alongside a book-a-demo path, but we found no public price information in the captured pages — no tier figures, seat or usage rates, included features, minimums or term. I cannot compute the annual cost for my eight hundred seats from this material. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
We found no price, tier, seat, usage-unit or term figure in any captured page, including the pricing page; the only documented commercial step is booking a demo. A company cannot compute an annual cost from what is public here. 1 4
The Automation Lead
We found no public prices on the captured pages — no per-seat, per-conversation or usage figures, no tier inclusions, no limits, term or minimum seats — and the vendor's stated path is a book-a-demo conversation. A company cannot compute an annual cost from what is published here. 1 4
The Customer-Service Director
We found no public information on any price — no per-seat, per-conversation or usage figure, no tiers, no minimums or term — and the captured pricing page shows nothing to compute from. The only route offered is 'Book a demo', so my CFO cannot forecast a cost per conversation from public pages alone. 1 4
The Works Council Member
The captured pricing page gave no figures we could confirm, and the documented route to the product is booking a demo; we found no public information on price per seat or usage unit, tier inclusions, usage limits or contract term. 1 4
The Skeptic
We found no price figures on the captured pricing page, and the documented entry point is booking a demo. Nothing in the evidence lets a company estimate a per-seat, per-minute or per-agent cost, and we found no public information on tiers, usage limits, add-ons, minimum seats or term. 4 1
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Parloa
Is Parloa European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Parloa as EU-Made.
Where does Parloa store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
Does Parloa have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Parloa?
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: Parloa 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. 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
- 64 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
- 30 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
- 12 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
- 12 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
- 2 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
- 2 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
- 1 hosting 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page (agent builder) www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Security and governance page www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Pricing page www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Legal notice www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Terms and privacy notices www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Models & processing location — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Models & processing location — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap www.parloa.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →