whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

Relevance AI

Rest of world 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 OnSearch Pty Ltd · relevanceai.com

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

Link to this page

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

Relevance AI at a glance

Vendor
OnSearch Pty Ltd
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 Relevance AI 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Relevance AI, a no-code platform for building AI agent teams from the Australian company OnSearch Pty Ltd, is judged strongest on agent capabilities, which scores 8: evaluations gate every build path, human-in-the-loop approvals sit on the visual canvas, and the vendor states its own limit that vector search "always returns results, even if none are truly relevant". how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 28 Oct 2026. all sources

Relevance AI alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Head of IT

Weighted verdict

Has to roll an AI assistant out to eight hundred staff without a second shadow-IT wave. Wants SSO and SCIM, groups that decide who gets which model, agent and connector, answers that respect SharePoint permissions, audit logs for the SIEM, and a deployment option that is not "trust us".

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

Scored by The Head of IT

Panel median The Head of IT 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 Head of IT
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 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 4 of 5 4 of 5
European sovereignty 2 of 5 2 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 Head of IT

No-training commitments are published for the platform itself and for the named model providers OpenAI and Anthropic, a data processing agreement is offered, log retention is stated per tier, and Enterprise admins can set a retention window in days covering agent conversations, though the vendor's team must enable it. The captured pages give different positions on improving the solution: the terms grant a licence to use client data to improve it, while a documentation page states data is not used to train or improve services without a partnership agreement. We found no public information on abuse-monitoring retention, or on commitments covering providers beyond those two, even though routing to any model provider is advertised. 5 7 9

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 Head of IT

Models and their providers are named, with OpenAI and Anthropic as external providers plus OpenAI, LLaMA and Fireworks models the vendor self-hosts in its own AWS and Azure environments, storage is region-locked at signup to the US, EU/UK or Australia, and bring-your-own API keys is supported. The captured pages give different statements on hosting location, with the terms allowing locations outside Australia unless otherwise agreed in writing, and we found no public information on inference regions per model, admin-enforced EU-only processing across models, or single-tenant deployment beyond a statement that it is in the works. 1 5 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 Head of IT

SAML 2.0 and OIDC single sign-on runs through WorkOS with Okta, Microsoft Entra and Google Workspace, identity-provider groups sync for automated provisioning, and permissions operate at organization, project and asset levels with fine-grained access control for Enterprise customers; audit logs export to S3 and stream over OpenTelemetry, which my SIEM can ingest. Single sign-on is Enterprise-only and limited to one identity provider per organization, and an email change provisions a new account rather than transferring permissions or owned assets, a lifecycle wart at my scale. We found no public information on retrieval that inherits source-system permissions such as SharePoint's, or on model entitlement per group. 7 9 10

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 Head of IT

Confluence and SharePoint connectors ship read and write steps with event triggers, native triggers cover CRM, email and calendar alongside webhooks and cron, custom connectors and MCP are supported, connections are shared once at workspace level, and data exports in CSV, Excel and JSON. The captured pages give different figures for the size of the connector library, quoting 1,000+, 1,800+ and 2,000+. We found no public information on source citations for grounded answers or on sync cadence and completeness for connected systems. 3 9 11 12 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 Head of IT

Agents act in connected systems through workspace-level connections with key scopes the customer manages at the underlying integration, human-in-the-loop approvals sit on the visual canvas alongside escalation monitoring, triggers and schedules come via webhooks, cron and native events, and every build path ships gated by the same evals, with live-run sampling, pass-rate charting and drift flagging before release. Version control, A/B testing, real-time monitoring and cost visibility per agent and per task are documented, and the vendor plainly states that vector search always returns results even when none are truly relevant, the kind of stated limit I want to see. We found no public information on staged rollouts or on attributing every action to the agent and the person who deployed it. 1 2 3 9 13 14

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 Head of IT

The contracting entity is OnSearch Pty Ltd trading as Relevance AI under New South Wales law with exclusive jurisdiction there, and the model providers processing prompts are OpenAI and Anthropic. Customers select US, EU/UK or Australia storage at signup, subprocessors are named by region across the UK, EEA, US and Australia with a public list, standard contractual clauses are referenced and a data processing agreement is offered. The contracting entity is Australian rather than European, and self-hosted inference runs in the vendor's own AWS and Azure environments rather than a European sovereign option. 4 5 6 9

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 Head of IT

The terms publish the fee structure, being subscription fees, actions where any tool or agent run counts as activity, and vendor credits charged at cost with GST excluded, and a free account and free trial exist, with the pricing page listing tier inclusions such as unlimited users, agents and workforces. No per-seat or per-run figures appear on the captured pages, single sign-on sits behind an Enterprise sales conversation, and I cannot compute an annual cost for eight hundred staff from public pages alone. 3 5 8 10 12

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 9 Report an error

Questions about Relevance AI

Is Relevance AI European?

No. whats-best.ai classifies Relevance AI as Rest of world.

Where does Relevance AI store data?

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

Does Relevance AI have a free plan?

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

What are the best alternatives to Relevance 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: Relevance AI 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 Relevance AI? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (14)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page (agents) relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Pricing page relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Data security policy relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Terms naming the legal entity relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Privacy policy relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Data use, training & retention — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Admin, identity & access controls — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap relevanceai.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →