Content Marketing
Acrolinx
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Acrolinx GmbH · acrolinx.com
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.
Acrolinx at a glance
- Vendor
- Acrolinx GmbH
- Headquarters
- Incorporated in United States source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Acrolinx 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Acrolinx, now Markup AI, scores as a content governance layer rather than a content platform: digitized style guides, terminology and Content Guardian Agents checking content inside the authoring tools teams already use. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Acrolinx, now Markup AI, scores as a content governance layer rather than a content platform: digitized style guides, terminology and Content Guardian Agents checking content inside the authoring tools teams already use. It is strongest on distribution and integrations, at 5 to 7, on a publicly documented API, zero-downtime key rotation and named connectors for Adobe Experience Manager, SharePoint Online, Salesforce, GitHub, Zapier and MCP. It is weakest on editorial planning, at 0 to 1: we found no public information on calendars, briefs, campaigns or due dates. The genuine split is content model and reuse at 2 to 5: two judges score 2 because the product stores no content of its own; others credit the terminology store's documented two-way export and re-import. AI and content rights lands at 4 to 6 on the stated commitment that user data is never used to train external AI models, with open questions on retention and output ownership. Sovereignty scores 3 to 4 on a mixed entity and hosting picture. Starter, Business and Enterprise plans are named; no prices appear.
Speaks for it
- Publicly documented API with an API Reference and Quickstart, bearer authentication, and keys with zero-downtime rotation
- Named connectors for Adobe Experience Manager, SharePoint Online, Salesforce, GitHub and Zapier, plus a command-line interface and an MCP integration
- Deterministic quality gates can block low-quality content before it publishes
- Terminology — term sets, terms and domains — exports to CSV and to an Acrolinx-compatible XML dump that can be imported again
- The vendor states user data and activity is never shared with public models or used to train external AI models, with Azure named as the AI infrastructure
Held against it
- We found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs, campaigns, owners, due dates or workload views
- We found no public information on comments, version history with restore, human approval steps or an audit log of who released which version
- Hosting is named as AWS, Rackspace and Azure with no region stated on any captured page
- We found no public information on a data processing agreement, data residency for content, or a published subprocessor list with locations
- We found no public information on AI processing location, retention of prompts and outputs, ownership of generated output, or EU AI Act marking of generated content
Best for
- You need to enforce digitized style guides and terminology inside Adobe Experience Manager, SharePoint Online, Salesforce or GitHub, and block low-scoring content before it publishes
- You want to wire automated content checks into your pipelines through a documented API, a command-line interface, Zapier or an MCP integration
- You govern AI-assisted writing and want administrators to control which agents writers can use, alongside a stated no-training commitment
- You maintain terminology as structured assets and need a documented CSV and XML export path that can be imported again
Avoid if
- You need an editorial planning workspace with calendars, briefs, campaign owners and due dates — planning stays in the authoring tools this plugs into
- You need named human approvers, comments, version history and an audit trail of who released which version — the documented gate is a deterministic score, not a person
- You expect the platform itself to store and structure your content with reusable components or locales — on this evidence it governs content living in other systems
- Your sign-off requires a stated hosting region or data residency for content — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Planning, editorial calendar & briefs | 0 of 5 |
| Creation, review & approval | 2 of 5 |
| Structured content, localisation & export | 2 of 5 |
| Publishing, distribution & integrations | 3 of 5 |
| AI assistance & content rights | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
Planning, editorial calendar & briefs
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Turning a content strategy into scheduled work: topics and campaigns, an editorial calendar across channels, briefs that carry the goal, audience and keywords to the writer, and a view of what is due, late or missing.
0 — No planning at all; the product only stores or renders content.
3 — A calendar or list view of content with publish dates and statuses.
5 — An editorial calendar across channels with owners, due dates and custom statuses, and content grouped by campaign, topic or channel.
8 — Strategy connected to the plan: briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords attached to each piece, topics or personas defined once and assigned to pieces, configurable workflows per content type, workload and deadline views per person, and recurring formats scheduled as series.
10 — The plan is accountable: every published piece traces back to its brief, topic and campaign, gaps in coverage per topic or funnel stage are reported, and plan-versus-published is visible over time without a spreadsheet.
The Head of Content
The captured pages describe a standards and checking layer that works inside the authoring tools and publishing workflows a team already runs, with digitized style guides and terminology the content is measured against. We found no public information on an editorial calendar, on briefs that carry the goal and audience to the writer, or on any view of what is due or late. 1 7
The SME Marketer
The captured pages present a governance and style-checking layer that works inside the authoring tools we already use, with deterministic quality gates that can block content before it publishes — but we found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs, campaign grouping, owners or deadline views. Planning my year would have to stay in another tool. 1 7
The Localisation Lead
The captured pages describe a governance layer — agents that score content against style guides and terminology, quality gates, and analytics of quality versus performance — and we found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs, campaign grouping, due dates or per-person workload views. On this evidence the planning lives in the authoring environments the product plugs into, not in the product itself. 1 7
The Web Engineer
The captured pages show a governance product — digitized style guides, terminology and quality gates applied inside other authoring tools — not a planning workspace; we found no public information on editorial calendars, briefs, campaigns, owners or deadline views. The closest is style guides digitized once with variations per audience. Because the product is evidenced as a different kind of tool, we score the absence of planning surfaces rather than treating them as unknown. 1 7
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages present a content-governance platform — digitized style guides, terminology, quality gates and Content Guardian Agents running inside existing authoring tools — which is a different class of product from a planning tool. We found no editorial calendar, brief, campaign, owner, due-date or workload view anywhere in the material. 1 7
Creation, review & approval
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Writing and reviewing content together: editing with comments and suggestions, roles and permissions for internal and external contributors, and an approval trail that records who released which version — published content is a legal statement (UWG, Heilmittelwerbegesetz, the imprint duty).
0 — A single-user tool; content cannot be shared with or reviewed by others.
3 — Several users working on content, with comments or a version history.
5 — Roles and permissions that separate writing from publishing, comments on content, a version history with restore, and an approval or review status before publishing.
8 — Configurable multi-step approval per content type or market, mandatory reviewers (legal, product, brand), inline suggested edits, guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, scheduled publishing that waits for approval, and an audit log of every edit, approval and publish with user and timestamp.
10 — Approval is evidence: the exact version each approver released is preserved and exportable, permissions reach down to field and locale level, and the audit trail is retained for a stated period and available after the contract ends.
The Head of Content
Roles are real here — two roles on the lower plans, fine-grained permission groups on Enterprise, and changes are blocked if they would leave the workspace without an administrator. Quality gates can also stop content before it publishes in tools like SharePoint and AEM, but the documented gate is a deterministic score rather than a person, and we found no public information on comments, version history, or an audit trail recording which exact version a reviewer released. 4 1 7
The SME Marketer
The permissions model is documented in detail — Writer and Administrator roles, and on the Enterprise plan fine-grained groups with identity-provider group mapping — and quality gates can automatically block content from publishing. But we found no public information on comments, version history, or an approval trail recording who released which version, which is exactly what I need when a published page becomes a legal statement. 4 7 1
The Localisation Lead
Roles and permissions are properly documented — Writer versus Administrator on Starter and Business, and on Enterprise fine-grained permission groups with identity-provider mapping — and automated quality gates can block low-quality content before it publishes. For an approval chain I need more: we found no public information on comments, version history with restore, mandatory human reviewers, or an audit trail recording who released which version and when. 4 1 7
The Web Engineer
Starter and Business plans separate Writer from Administrator, and the Enterprise plan replaces roles with fine-grained permission groups including identity-provider group mapping, with the last administrator protected. Deterministic quality gates block low-quality content before it publishes with humans kept in the loop, but we found no public information on comments, version history with restore, or an audit log of who approved what. 4 1 7
The Data Protection Officer
Documented roles (Writer, Administrator on Starter and Business) and fine-grained permission groups on Enterprise, with the last administrator protected and permission changes taking effect at next sign-in, plus deterministic quality gates that can block content before it publishes. What I need as the officer signing off on release trails is not on the pages: no comments, no version history with restore, no human approval step with named approvers, and no audit log recording who released which version. An automated scoring gate is not an approval trail. 4 1 7
The Skeptic
Two roles, Writer and Administrator, plus Enterprise groups with fine-grained permissions are documented, and automated quality gates can block low-quality content before it publishes. We found no public information on comments, version history with restore, human approval steps, or an audit log of who released which version. 4 1 7
Structured content, localisation & export
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether content is stored as reusable structure rather than pages: a content model, components shared across channels, German and other locales managed side by side, and the whole repository exportable in a documented format.
0 — Not a content store; the product keeps no content of its own (for example a pure scheduling or analytics tool).
3 — Templates or custom fields for content, a media library, and content in several languages.
5 — A configurable content model or content types with reusable components, locales managed side by side for each entry, and an export of entries in JSON, CSV, XML or a similar documented format.
8 — References between entries, field-level localisation with fallback languages, variants per market or audience, translation workflows with status per locale and named translation-service connectors, and a full export of content, model, locales and assets documented and self-service.
10 — The repository is portable by design: model and content exportable together and re-importable, migration tooling or a CLI documented in both directions, version history included in the export, and no feature that only works while the content stays.
The Head of Content
The terminology store is genuine structure — term sets, terms and domains — with publicly documented export to CSV and an Acrolinx-compatible XML dump that the same documentation says can be imported again, so these assets move in both directions. We found no public information on locales managed side by side, and the structured assets are style guides and terminology rather than content entries with reusable components. 5 6 1
The SME Marketer
The product keeps no content of its own — it checks text living in Adobe Experience Manager, GitHub or SharePoint — and we found no public information on a content model, locales or managing German and English side by side. What it does store is structured: terminology organised into term sets and domains with documented CSV and XML export and a documented re-import, and translation is listed among the use cases. 5 6 1
The Localisation Lead
The one structured asset the pages clearly document — terminology as term sets, terms and domains — is honestly portable: CSV and ACTIF exports plus an Acrolinx-compatible XML database dump that can be imported again, so that repository is not a hostage. But my core demands go unmet on this evidence: we found no public information on a content model, reusable components, locales on the entry or field level, fallback languages or translation status per language, only Translation named among use cases. 5 6 1
The Web Engineer
The terminology repository — term sets, terms and domains — is exportable to CSV, ACTIF XML and a full Acrolinx-compatible XML dump that re-imports through a documented API endpoint, which is a real two-way migration path. We found no public information on locale management side by side, a general content model for stored content, media assets, or version history included in the export, so this sits between the anchor requiring locales and the one requiring a documented export. 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The platform's own structured asset — terminology — is portable through a documented API: a CSV of all term sets, terms and domains in the same format as the import, and an Acrolinx-compatible XML dump that can be posted back in. That is genuine, self-service, two-way portability for the terminology store. The product is otherwise a checking layer over content held in AEM, SharePoint or GitHub, and we found no content model, reusable components or locale management for the customer's content itself. 5 6 1
The Skeptic
The only repository the pages document is terminology: term sets, terms and domains export to CSV and to an Acrolinx-compatible XML dump that can be imported again through the API. We found no public information on a content model, reusable content components, locales managed side by side, or an export of the content pieces themselves — the platform governs content that lives in other tools. 5 6 1
Publishing, distribution & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting approved content to where it is read: publishing to websites and channels, a documented API and webhooks, and named connections to the CMS, CRM, analytics, SEO and translation tools a marketing stack already runs.
0 — A closed tool; content leaves only by copy and paste.
3 — Publishing to one website or CMS, and a few named integrations.
5 — Publishing to websites and several channels from one place, a publicly documented API or webhooks, and integrations named for common CMS, CRM or analytics tools.
8 — A versioned API with published rate limits and SDKs, webhooks on publish and change, preview environments, a marketplace or integration directory with maintained connectors, performance data per piece pulled back from analytics, and a public status page.
10 — The platform is a dependable source for every channel: API deprecation policy published, CDN and delivery SLA stated, scheduled and event-driven publishing documented end to end, and content performance attributed per channel without a separate tool.
The Head of Content
This is the strongest part of the record for my stack: a publicly documented API with key management and zero-downtime rotation, plus named connections into Adobe Experience Manager, SharePoint Online, Salesforce, GitHub, Zapier and an MCP integration that checks and scores content automatically before it publishes. It gates publishing in the channels a team already runs rather than publishing itself, and we found no public information on rate limits, SDKs, webhooks or a status page. 7 8 1 6
The SME Marketer
There is a publicly documented, versioned API with bearer authentication and a quickstart, manageable API keys with zero-downtime rotation, and named integrations for Adobe Experience Manager, Salesforce, SharePoint Online and GitHub, plus a command line interface and an MCP integration that hooks into publishing workflows. We found no public information on webhooks, SDKs, published rate limits or a status page. 7 8 1
The Localisation Lead
A publicly documented API with bearer authentication, error codes, an API reference and managed keys with zero-downtime rotation, plus named connectors for AEM, SharePoint Online, Salesforce, GitHub, Zapier, a command-line interface and MCP — a solid, verifiable integration surface. The product checks and gates content inside external publishing pipelines rather than publishing channels itself, and we found no public information on webhooks, published rate limits, SDKs or a public status page. 7 8 1
The Web Engineer
There is a documented REST API with a versioned path, bearer authentication, error codes, an API Reference and Quickstart, and key management with masked previews and zero-downtime rotation — plus a hosted MCP server, Zapier, a GitHub Action, and six named automation integrations including a CLI, AEM, Salesforce and SharePoint. We found no public information on published rate limits, webhooks on publish, SDKs or a status page, which keeps it below the higher anchor. 8 7 6 5
The Data Protection Officer
A versioned, publicly documented API with a Quickstart and full API Reference, managed keys with masked previews and zero-downtime rotation, and named connectors to AEM, Salesforce, SharePoint Online and GitHub, plus Zapier, a GitHub Action and an MCP integration, with quality gates wired into publishing workflows and quality tied to performance in the analytics. We found no published rate limits, SDKs, webhooks or status page. 7 8 1
The Skeptic
A publicly documented API with a reference and quickstart, bearer authentication, key rotation without downtime, and named connectors for AEM, SharePoint Online, Salesforce, GitHub, Zapier and an MCP server give a real integration surface. We found no public information on webhooks, published rate limits, SDKs, a status page or a connector marketplace, and the documented role is checking content inside publishing workflows rather than delivering channels. 7 8 1
AI assistance & content rights
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the platform's AI does with the customer's content and what the customer may do with the AI's: the models and where they run, whether content trains them, opt-out, labelling of generated text under the EU AI Act, and who holds the rights to output.
0 — The vendor states that customer content trains its models with no opt-out, or reserves the rights to AI output for itself.
3 — AI writing features described with what they do, and a general statement on how content is handled by them.
5 — The AI model provider named, a statement that customer content does not train models, and AI features that an admin can switch off.
8 — Model providers listed as subprocessors, EU processing for AI features stated or selectable, retention of prompts and outputs given in days, ownership of generated output assigned to the customer in the terms, generated content markable for EU AI Act transparency, and brand voice or terminology rules applied without training a shared model.
10 — AI is governed and documented: per-feature list of model, provider and processing location, admin controls per role and content type, an audit trail of AI-generated changes, and the output rights and any indemnity written into the contract terms.
The Head of Content
The statement that user data and activity is never shared with public models or used to train external AI models appears on two captured pages, Azure is named as the AI infrastructure, and generated content is held to the digitized style guide and terminology. We found no public information on the specific models, where AI processing happens, retention of prompts and outputs, ownership of generated text, or EU AI Act labelling. 9 1 4
The SME Marketer
This answers my biggest question clearly: the vendor states user data and activity is never shared with public models or used to train external AI models, the AI infrastructure is stated to run on Azure with built-in guardrails, and administrators control which agents the organisation enables. Still, we found no public information on who owns the generated output, how long prompts are retained, or marking generated text for EU AI Act transparency — my legal review would have open questions. 9 1 4
The Localisation Lead
The enterprise LLM page names Azure as the AI infrastructure, states plainly that user data and activity is never shared with public models or used to train external AI models, claims freedom from single-model lock-in, and agents can be enabled per organization, which gives an administrator an off switch. On the harder questions we found no public information: no per-feature list of models and processing locations, no retention period for prompts and outputs, no statement assigning rights to generated output, and no mention of EU AI Act labelling of generated text. 9 1 4
The Web Engineer
Azure is named as the AI infrastructure, the pages state that user data and activity is never shared with public models or used to train external AI models, organizations control which agents writers can use, and guardrail categories for harm, hate, explicit and violent content are documented, with no single-model lock-in claimed. We found no public information on retention periods for prompts and outputs, ownership of generated output in the terms, EU processing location for AI features, or marking of generated content under the EU AI Act. 9 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
The AI infrastructure is named as Azure, the vendor states user data and activity is "never shared with public models or used to train external AI models", and agents are enabled at organization level by administrators — the switch-off control I look for. Two caveats from my desk: the no-training wording excludes external models only, and it sits on product pages rather than in terms; we found no retention period in days for prompts and outputs, no stated processing location for AI, no EU AI Act marking of generated text, and no assignment of output rights to the customer. 9 1 4
The Skeptic
The pages state plainly that user data and activity is never shared with public models or used to train external AI models, and Azure is named as the AI infrastructure with blocking guardrails for harmful, hateful, explicit and violent output. No specific model is named as a subprocessor, and we found no public information on AI processing location, retention of prompts and outputs in days, who holds the rights to generated text, or marking generated content for EU AI Act transparency. 9 1 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where content, assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; dimensions the evidence does not establish are unknown, not non-European.
0 — Vendor, contracting entity and hosting all shown to be outside the EU, with no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement offered, with hosting or the contracting entity outside the EU or not established.
5 — EU hosting stated for content and assets, with a data processing agreement offered.
8 — EU contracting entity, content, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, CDN, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.
The Head of Content
The privacy pages document processing under Article 28 of the GDPR with a TÜV-certified data protection officer and downloadable ISO 27001 and 27701 certificates, but hosting is named as AWS, Rackspace and Azure with no region stated. The captured pages also give a mixed contracting picture: the legal notice names a US corporation as owner of the website, while the parent is a Berlin-registered company with an EU tax ID and the privacy statements name Acrolinx GmbH as the sole user of personal data. 2 3 9
The SME Marketer
The picture is genuinely mixed: the website's owner is a US company in Massachusetts, while the parent is a Berlin-registered German company with an EU tax ID, and the privacy page names Acrolinx GmbH as the sole user of personal data under Article 28 GDPR, backed by ISO 27001 and 27701 certificates and a TÜV-certified data protection officer. Hosting and subprocessors are named — AWS, Azure, Rackspace, CrowdStrike, Crashtest Security — but we found no public information stating where content, assets or AI prompts are stored and processed. 2 3 9
The Localisation Lead
There is a real European anchor — parent Markup AI Europe GmbH registered in Berlin with an EU tax number, GDPR Article 28 processing under a TÜV-certified data protection officer, ISO 27001 and 27701 with annual audits, and named subprocessors with their purposes. But hosting is named as AWS, Azure and Rackspace with no region stated, the website owner is a US entity, and we found no public information on data residency, hosting options or a downloadable data processing agreement, so EU storage of content is not established. 2 3 9
The Web Engineer
The website is owned by a US entity while the parent is registered in Berlin with a German commercial register and the vendor carries a German EU tax ID, and hosting is named as AWS, Azure and Rackspace with no regions stated — so EU hosting for content and assets is not established. The privacy page states Article 28 GDPR processing under a TÜV-certified DPO alongside ISO 27001 and 27701 certificates, which lifts it just above the floor; data residency, the data processing agreement and AI processing location are unknown on the captured pages. 2 3 9
The Data Protection Officer
A privacy policy exists, processing of customers' personal data is stated to follow Article 28 GDPR under DPO oversight, and ISO 27001 and 27701 certificates are published with the audit firm named. But the residency facts I require before sign-off are not established: hosting is AWS, Rackspace and Azure with no region stated, the responsible-entity picture is mixed (a US website owner, a Berlin-registered parent, and Acrolinx GmbH named on the enterprise page), and the security subprocessors CrowdStrike and Crashtest Security are named with purposes but without locations. Without a stated EU hosting region I cannot establish where our content, assets and prompts would sit. 2 3 9
The Skeptic
The entity picture is split: the website owner is Markup AI North America, Inc. in the United States, while the parent Markup AI Europe GmbH is registered in Berlin, Acrolinx GmbH carries a German tax number, and processing of customers' personal data under GDPR Article 28 with DPO oversight is stated. Hosting is named as AWS with a global footprint plus Rackspace and Azure with no region stated anywhere, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement, data residency for content, or a published subprocessor list with locations. 2 3 9
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team, locales and traffic from public pages alone — seats and contributor roles, locales, content records, API calls and bandwidth, AI credits, and the plan where approval workflows or SSO begin.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price, a free tier, or one priced plan, with the rest on request.
5 — Prices for each plan public with the billing period (per month or per year) and the seats or main limits each includes.
8 — Every plan priced with seats, locales, records, API and bandwidth limits and overage rates stated, AI usage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks approval workflows, SSO and audit logs named.
10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given team, locale count and traffic, every add-on and overage priced publicly, contract term and renewal conditions stated, and the cost of exporting or leaving the platform zero or published.
The Head of Content
The captured pages name Starter, Business and Enterprise plans, and say the Enterprise tier is enabled by talking to your account team. We found no public information on prices, billing periods or limits, so I cannot put a number on a year for my team from these pages. 4
The SME Marketer
The captured pages name Starter, Business and Enterprise plans, and Enterprise buyers are told to talk to the account team — but we found no public information on prices, seat counts, billing periods or limits. I cannot even begin to compute what a second language and agency guests as users would cost us per year. 4 1
The Localisation Lead
The captured pages name Starter, Business and Enterprise plans and state which roles each gets, but no price figure appears anywhere, and the Enterprise plan is switched on by talking to your account team. A buyer cannot compute any cost from these pages; we found no public information on seat prices, per-plan limits, billing periods or overages. 4 1
The Web Engineer
The captured pages name Starter, Business and Enterprise plans, and fine-grained permissions are enabled by talking to your account team — but no price figure, billing period or seat and usage limit appears on any page we read. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from these pages alone. 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
The documentation names Starter, Business and Enterprise plans, and Enterprise capabilities are enabled by "talking to your account team". We found no price figure, billing period, seat count or usage limit on any captured page, so no annual cost can be computed from the public material. 4
The Skeptic
The captured pages name Starter, Business and Enterprise plans and route Enterprise permissions through your account team, but we found no public information on any price, billing period, seat counts, usage limits or overage rates. Nothing on these pages lets a buyer estimate an annual cost. 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 6 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 | Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Acrolinx
Is Acrolinx European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Acrolinx is based. Its vendor, Acrolinx GmbH, is incorporated in United States, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Where does Acrolinx store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Acrolinx have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Acrolinx?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates StoryChief (3/5), Kontent.ai (3/5) and Scompler (3/5) highest among the other 23 Content Marketing 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 StoryChief (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Acrolinx alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The website owner is this US entity, but its parent, Markup AI Europe GmbH, is registered in Berlin, Germany (Charlottenburg District Court, HRB 84183 B) and holds the copyright and 'Acrolinx' trademark.
- 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 found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (acrolinx.com, acrolinx.com/legal, acrolinx.com/information-security-and-data-privacy, docs.markup.ai/admin/roles-and-permissions, docs.markup.ai/developer-reference/api-reference/brand-terms/export-terminology-csv, docs.markup.ai/developer-reference/api-reference/style-agent/terminology/export-xml-dump-endpoint and 3 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 15 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
- 5 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
- 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
- 1 compliance 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
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →