Content Marketing
Kontent.ai
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Kontent s.r.o. · kontent.ai
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.
Kontent.ai at a glance
- Vendor
- Kontent s.r.o.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Kontent.ai 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Kontent.ai, a cloud-based content management platform from Kontent s.r.o. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Kontent.ai, a cloud-based content management platform from Kontent s.r.o. of Brno, Czechia, scores highest on content model and reuse, a flat 7: configurable content types of mix-and-match elements, elements localizable by default, a named DeepL translation service, and documented Delivery, Sync and Management APIs. Collaboration and approval holds a flat 6 on role-gated workflows per content type and collection plus inline comments, suggestions and mentions. Sovereignty is the weak point at 2 to 3: hosting on Microsoft Azure is stated without a region, the terms name Kontent.ai Inc. (New York) and/or Kontent B.V. (Amsterdam), translation runs through DeepL Worldwide, and AI processing depends on the project data center. Judges split on editorial planning, 4 to 6, the documented calendar and shareable filters reading as real planning infrastructure to some and as thin beside silence on briefs, campaign grouping and per-person workload views; and on AI and content rights, 5 to 7, where strong labelling governance met silence on whether customer content trains the models, prompt retention and rights to generated output. The captured pricing page states no price figures.
Speaks for it
- Content model and reuse scored a flat 7 on configurable content types of mix-and-match elements, elements localizable by default, linked items and taxonomy groups reusable across content types.
- Collaboration and approval scored a flat 6, with workflow steps restricted by role and scoped per content type and collection, including who may publish, unpublish or create new versions of published content.
- AI labelling is enforceable: the label is stored as structured content delivered through the Delivery API, and a required labeling element blocks publishing without a value.
- The AI services page names model, publisher and processing location per feature, from Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-4o to text-embedding-3 via Azure AI, Azure AI Vision and DeepL.
- Delivery, Sync and Management APIs are documented over HTTPS with SDKs, a Postman collection, content filtering, preview and CDN caching.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 2 to 3, with Microsoft Azure hosting stated without a region and no public confirmation of subprocessor names, locations or purposes.
- Translation is processed by DeepL Worldwide and AI processing location depends on the project data center, without a stated data-residency guarantee.
- Integrations are described by category such as e-commerce platforms and static site generators, and we found no public information on named CMS, CRM or analytics connectors.
- The terms describe only admin and user account types, and we found no public information on guest or freelancer access short of a full seat.
- We found no public information on whether customer content trains the AI models, on prompt and output retention, or on an admin switch to disable AI features per workspace.
Best for
- You run multi-language content operations and want localisation in the model itself, with elements localizable by default and DeepL named for translation.
- Your developers build their own front ends, since the Delivery, Sync and Management APIs are publicly documented with SDKs and a Postman collection.
- You need governed AI disclosure, with the AI label stored as structured content, a required element that blocks publishing without a value and a dedicated review workflow step.
- Your approvals must be role-gated per content type and collection, including who may publish, unpublish or cancel scheduling.
Avoid if
- Your compliance regime requires processing confined to the EU, as translation is processed by DeepL Worldwide and AI processing location depends on the project data center.
- You want prebuilt connectors to named CMS, CRM or analytics products, as the integrations on record are categories such as e-commerce platforms, search engines and static site generators.
- Your external collaborators need limited guest access, as the terms describe only admin and user account types.
- You need a cost estimate before a sales conversation, as the captured pricing page states no price figures.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Planning, editorial calendar & briefs | 2 of 5 |
| Creation, review & approval | 3 of 5 |
| Structured content, localisation & export | 3.5 of 5 |
| Publishing, distribution & integrations | 2 of 5 |
| AI assistance & content rights | 3 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 features; content is created as standalone entries with no calendar, status or owner.
3 — A shared calendar with publish dates and simple statuses, but no briefs, no campaigns or topics to group work under, and no notion of who owns a piece.
5 — An editorial calendar across channels with owners, due dates and custom statuses, briefs attached to each piece, and content grouped by campaign or topic cluster.
8 — Strategy is connected to the plan: 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 editorial calendar shows due dates, four statuses including Delayed, and contributors and dates on each item, which is exactly the what-is-late view I need. Beyond that we found no public information on briefs that carry goal, audience and keywords to the writer, on campaign or topic grouping, or on workload and deadline views per person. 5 8 1
The SME Marketer
There is a real editorial calendar with due dates, on-track and delayed statuses, contributor and date metadata per item, and shareable saved filters, and workflows can be configured separately per content type and collection. A guidelines element can carry instructions to writers, but I found no public information on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords, on grouping work by campaign or topic, or on workload and deadline views per person. 5 8 14
The Localisation Lead
The editorial calendar carries due dates, contributors, workflow status and on-track versus delayed categories, and separate workflows can be scoped per content type and collection, which is real planning infrastructure. I found no public information on briefs that carry the goal, audience and keywords to the writer, on campaign or topic grouping, on workload views per person, or on recurring formats scheduled as series. 5 8 1
The Web Engineer
The editorial calendar is real and documented — due dates, scheduled and published items, four categories including a Delayed bucket, Calendar and Agenda views, and item metadata showing contributors and workflow steps, with configurable workflows per content type and collection. But I found no public information on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords, on grouping work under campaigns or topic clusters, or on workload and deadline views per person; the SEO/GEO content gap analysis appears only as a homepage claim. 5 8 1
The Data Protection Officer
The editorial calendar is documented with due dates, four status categories including Delayed, per-item contributors, shareable saved filters and a project overview for planning. We found no public information on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords, on grouping work by campaign or topic cluster, or on workload and deadline views per person; the guidelines element guides contributors per content type but is not evidenced as a per-piece brief. 1 5 6 14
The Skeptic
The editorial calendar shows due dates plus items that are scheduled, published, on track or delayed, and clicking an item reveals contributors and dates — a real calendar with owners, not just dates. What I did not find: per-piece briefs (the guidelines element gives general instructions per content type, not goal, audience and keywords per item), campaign or topic grouping of the plan, or any workload view per person. 5 8 14
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.
0 — Single-user editing with no comments, no roles beyond admin, and no record of changes.
3 — Comments and a version history exist, but every user can publish, external writers need a full seat, and approval is a status anyone can set.
5 — Roles that separate writing from publishing, inline comments and suggested edits, a version history with restore, and guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces.
8 — Configurable multi-step approval per content type or market, mandatory reviewers (legal, product, brand), 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
Inline comments, suggestions with one-click approve, mentions and resolvable threads are solid, and workflows can be scoped per content type with role gates on every step plus dedicated settings for who may publish or unpublish — more than a status anyone can flip. But we found no public information on version history with restore, freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, or an audit log recording which version legal actually released. 7 8 4
The SME Marketer
Inline comments on text and images, suggestions I can approve, mentions with email notification, and workflow steps restricted by role — including which roles may publish, unpublish or cancel scheduling — cover most of what my team needs before the agency touches a draft. But the terms describe only admin and user accounts, and I found no public information on freelancer or guest access limited to assigned pieces, on an audit log of every edit and approval, or on restoring prior versions. 4 7 8
The Localisation Lead
Comments, suggestions with one-click approve, mentions and resolvable threads are documented, and workflow steps are gated by role, including dedicated settings for unpublishing, archiving and cancelling scheduled publishing. I found no public information on an audit log of every edit, approval and publish with user and timestamp, on guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, or on the exact released version being preserved and exportable. 7 8 4
The Web Engineer
Role-gated, configurable workflows per content type and collection — including which roles may create new versions of published content or unpublish and cancel scheduling — sit alongside genuinely good inline comments and suggestions with mentions, resolution and reopening. I found no public information on an audit log of edits, approvals and publishes with user and timestamp, on version history with restore, or on guest and freelancer access limited to assigned pieces. 7 8 14
The Data Protection Officer
Inline comments and suggestions with approve, mentions, resolvable threads and keyboard shortcuts are documented, and workflows can be scoped per content type and collection with role-gated steps, default steps limited to the Project Manager role, and dedicated role settings for creating new versions of published content and cancelling scheduling. We found no public information on version history with restore, guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, or an audit log recording who released which version with user and timestamp; the terms name only admin and user account types. 4 7 8
The Skeptic
Comments, suggestions with one-click approve, mentions and resolvable threads are documented, and workflow steps can be restricted to roles — including who may publish, unpublish or create new versions of published content — with separate workflows per content type and collection. We found no public information on a version history with restore, on guest or freelancer access short of a full seat, or on an audit log recording who released which version. 4 7 8
Structured content, localisation & export
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 — Content stored as formatted pages with no structure, one language per entry, and no export beyond copy and paste.
3 — Custom fields or templates exist, but localisation means duplicating entries, assets live elsewhere, and the only export is HTML or a CSV of titles.
5 — A configurable content model with reusable components, field-level localisation with fallback languages, a media library with alt text, and an export of entries and assets in JSON or a similar documented format.
8 — References between entries, variants per market or audience, translation workflows with status per locale and connectors to translation services named, 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
Content types built from mix-and-match elements, elements localizable by default per language, reusable taxonomy groups and linked items, a named DeepL translation service and agents triggered on new language variants give real structure and reuse. Export and import run through the publicly documented Delivery and Management APIs; we found no public information on fallback languages, a media library with alt text, or version history included in any export. 9 13 11 14
The SME Marketer
Content types with mix-and-match elements, linked items for references, elements localizable by default with values per language, and DeepL named for translation plus expert agents that translate on a new language variant — the second German site is a first-class case here. Delivery, Management and Sync APIs are documented with SDKs and a Postman collection, though I found no public information on a media library with alt text or a documented full export that includes version history. 9 11 13 14
The Localisation Lead
Localisation sits on the field, as it should: all elements are localizable by default with different values per language, language variants exist, DeepL is named as the translation service, and the APIs expose content items, content types and languages, with a Management API documented for import and content-type migration. I found no public information on translation status per locale, fallback languages, a media library with alt text, or a documented self-service export that takes content, model, locales and assets out in one piece. 9 11 13 14
The Web Engineer
Structured content is the real thing: content types built from mix-and-match elements, linked items for references between entries, elements localizable by default with languages and taxonomy groups as first-class API resources, a named translation connector in DeepL, and documented Delivery, Sync and Management APIs with SDKs and a Postman collection. What holds it back is packaging: I found no public information on a migration CLI or a re-importable export that carries version history, on a media library with alt text, or on fallback languages. 9 11 13 14
The Data Protection Officer
A configurable content model with mix-and-match elements, linked items, elements localizable by default, taxonomy groups reusable across content types, role-based element access and ready-to-import modeling templates is documented, with DeepL named for translation and content items, types, languages and taxonomy retrievable through documented APIs, including Management API import for migration. We found no public information on a media library with alt text, fallback languages, or a documented self-service export of assets alongside content and model. 9 11 13 14
The Skeptic
Content types are configurable templates of mix-and-match elements, elements are localizable by default with different values per language, linked items give references between entries, translation runs through a named service (DeepL), and content, content types, languages and taxonomy groups are all reachable through the documented Delivery, Management and Sync APIs with SDKs and a Postman collection. Missing from the captures: a media library with alt text, fallback languages, and any statement that version history comes along in an export or that content and model re-import together. 9 11 12 13 14
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 — Content leaves only by copy and paste; no API, no webhooks and no named integrations.
3 — Publishing to one CMS through a plugin, a handful of named integrations, and an API that is mentioned but not publicly documented.
5 — Publishing to websites and several channels from one place, a publicly documented REST or GraphQL API, webhooks on publish and change, and integrations named for at least the common CMS, CRM and analytics tools.
8 — A versioned API with published rate limits and SDKs, 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
The Delivery and Sync APIs are publicly documented with SDKs, a Postman collection, preview and CDN caching — genuinely strong developer documentation. We found no public information on webhooks, and integrations are described only by category such as e-commerce platforms, search engines and static site generators rather than named CMS, CRM or analytics connectors. 11 12 2
The SME Marketer
The Delivery and Sync APIs are publicly documented with content filtering, CDN caching, preview, SDKs and a Postman collection, which is more than a plugin. But the integrations page speaks only in categories — e-commerce platforms, search engines, personalization tools, static site generators — with no named CMS, CRM or analytics connectors, and I found no public information on webhooks on publish and change. 1 2 11 12
The Localisation Lead
The Delivery and Sync APIs are publicly documented with SDKs, a Postman collection, content filtering, preview and CDN caching, which covers headless delivery to any channel. Integration categories such as e-commerce, search engines, personalization and static site generators are named, but I found no public information on webhooks, published rate limits, a public status page, or integrations named for specific CMS, CRM and analytics products. 11 12 2
The Web Engineer
The API story is solid for a headless pitch — documented Delivery, Delivery Preview and read-only Sync APIs over HTTPS with content filtering, SDKs, a Postman collection, CDN caching and a change-detection Sync API that keeps apps current. But I found no public information on webhooks on publish and change, published rate limits or an API deprecation policy, and the integrations on record are categories like e-commerce platforms and static site generators rather than named CMS, CRM and analytics connectors; multi-channel publishing appears as a homepage claim. 11 12 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Delivery, Sync and Management APIs are publicly documented with SDKs, a Postman collection, content filtering, CDN caching, HTTPS enforcement and preview versus published content. Integrations are described only by category such as e-commerce platforms and static site generators; we found no public information on webhooks, named CMS, CRM or analytics connectors, published rate limits, a connector marketplace, analytics pulled back per piece, or a public status page. 2 11 12 14
The Skeptic
The APIs are publicly documented — REST Delivery and Sync over HTTPS, filtering, preview versus published content, CDN caching, SDKs and a Postman collection — which is more than a mention on a features page. But the integration claims speak only in categories (e-commerce, search engines, personalization, static site generators); we found no public information on named CMS, CRM or analytics connectors, webhooks on publish or change, rate limits, or a status page. 2 11 12 13
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, and who holds the rights to output.
0 — AI writing features with no statement on which model is used, where content is sent, or whether it is used for training.
3 — An AI page that names a provider but leaves open whether customer content trains models, where prompts are processed, or whether the features can be switched off.
5 — The model providers named as subprocessors, customer content excluded from training stated in the terms, AI features switchable per workspace by an admin, and ownership of generated output assigned to the customer.
8 — EU processing for AI features stated or selectable, retention of prompts and outputs given in days, generated or AI-edited content markable for EU AI Act transparency, and brand voice or terminology rules applied without uploading content to train 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 AI services page names per feature the model, publisher and processing location — Claude Sonnet for the agent, GPT-4o for transforms, Azure AI for embeddings — and the governance story is real: the AI label is stored as structured content, a required labeling element blocks publishing without a value, and a dedicated review step is possible. We found no public information on whether customer content trains the models, on prompt and output retention, or on an admin switch to turn AI features off per workspace. 13 14 4
The SME Marketer
A per-feature list names the models — Claude Sonnet 4.6 for the agent, GPT-4o via Azure AI, Azure AI Vision, DeepL — with processing location qualified as depending on the project data center, and AI involvement can be a structured label that blocks publishing without a value, with a dedicated review workflow step; the terms also assign all intellectual property rights in customer content to the customer. What I could not find anywhere: whether my drafts train these models, an admin switch to turn AI features off per workspace, or how long prompts and outputs are retained — and as someone who writes half her content with AI, that silence is the deal risk. 4 13 14
The Localisation Lead
The AI services page lists model, provider and processing location per feature — Claude Sonnet 4.6 for agents, GPT-4o via Azure AI, text embeddings, Azure AI Vision and DeepL — and the AI label is stored as structured content delivered through the Delivery API, with a required labeling element that blocks publishing and an editorial owner field for human review. I found no public information on whether customer content trains the models, on prompt and output retention, on admin switch-off per workspace, or on output rights for AI-generated content written into the terms. 13 14 4
The Web Engineer
Unusually good model transparency: a per-feature list naming Claude Sonnet 4.6 for the Aiko agent, GPT-4o for generation, OpenAI embeddings, Azure AI Vision and DeepL, with processing location tied to the project data center, plus documented AI-content labelling — the label is structured content delivered through the Delivery API, a required element can block publishing without it, and a dedicated review workflow step is described. I found no public information on whether customer content trains these models, on an admin switch to disable AI features, on retention of prompts and outputs, or on explicit ownership of AI-generated output; the terms assign the customer rights to content it enters and uploads but are silent on generated text. 13 14 4
The Data Protection Officer
A per-feature list names Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o and text-embedding-3 via Azure AI, Azure AI Vision and DeepL, with processing tied to the project data center or worldwide, and AI labels can be stored as structured content behind a required labelling element that blocks publishing without a value, which is a credible EU AI Act transparency setup. However, we found no public statement on whether customer content trains these models, no retention period for prompts and outputs in days, and no admin switch for AI features per workspace; the terms retain the customer's IP in content the customer enters, without separately assigning rights to generated output. 4 13 14
The Skeptic
The AI documentation lists model, publisher and processing location per feature — Claude Sonnet 4.6 for the agents, GPT-4o and embeddings via Azure AI depending on the project data center, DeepL worldwide for translation — and AI involvement can be recorded as structured content with a required labeling element that blocks publishing without a value, plus a default that keeps unreviewed content disclosed. What the captured pages do not say: whether customer content trains any of these models, whether AI features can be switched off by an admin, how long prompts and outputs are retained, or who owns generated output beyond the general clause that customers keep rights to the content they enter. 4 13 14
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.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where content is hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — Content hosted in the EU on request or on a higher plan only, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI and analytics features send content outside the EU without an explained safeguard.
5 — EU hosting stated for content and assets, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (CDN, AI, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
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 company is Czech and hosting runs on Microsoft Azure, yet the captured terms name Kontent.ai Inc. of New York and Kontent B.V. of Amsterdam as contracting entities, translation is processed by DeepL Worldwide, and AI locations merely depend on the project data center. We found no public statement of an EU region for content and backups, and the third-party document is referenced without a published list with locations and purposes on the captured pages. 4 13 3
The SME Marketer
The terms name Kontent.ai Inc. (New York) and/or Kontent B.V. (Amsterdam) as contracting entities, hosting sits with Microsoft Azure, and I found no public information on the region, on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, or on AI processing being EU-based — the models page says location depends on the project data center and marks DeepL as worldwide. GDPR processor framing and a privacy contact are stated, but the chain underneath is not visible on the captured pages. 3 4 13
The Localisation Lead
The captured terms name Kontent.ai Inc. of New York and/or Kontent B.V. of Amsterdam as contracting entities, hosting is stated as Microsoft Azure with no region, and DeepL processes translation Worldwide with embeddings stored in Azure AI for global search. The privacy policy points to a document on third-party processors, but I found no published subprocessor list with locations and purposes and no statement of EU data residency on the captured pages. 4 13 3
The Web Engineer
The cloud provider is named as Microsoft Azure and a third-party document is referenced for who processes data, but the captured pages give no statement of where content and assets are hosted, and the terms name Kontent.ai Inc. of New York and/or Kontent B.V. of Amsterdam as contracting entities without resolving which one applies. Translation processing is listed as Worldwide and AI processing location depends on the project data center, with no stated EU safeguard; the contents of the third-party list were not confirmed on the captured pages. 4 3 13
The Data Protection Officer
Microsoft Azure is named as the cloud provider and a third-party processing document is referenced by name, but we found no public confirmation of the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the region where content and backups are stored, or any subprocessor names, locations and purposes. DeepL translation is stated to process worldwide and AI processing depends on the project data center without a stated data-residency guarantee, so nothing on the captured pages evidences EU storage or an EU contracting entity. 3 4 13
The Skeptic
The terms name Kontent.ai Inc. (New York) and/or Kontent B.V. (Amsterdam) as contracting entities, hosting is on Microsoft Azure with no region stated, and translation is processed by DeepL worldwide without a stated safeguard. We found no public information on where content and backups are stored, on ownership, or on subprocessors beyond a reference to a document called Personal Data in Kontent.ai; the GDPR processor role and the SLA annex are the only European footing in the captures. 3 4 13
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 starting price per month, but what it includes is vague and the limits that drive the real cost (locales, records, API calls, AI credits) are unstated.
5 — Plans priced per seat with their main limits listed, but at least one commonly incurred cost (extra locales, overage on records or API calls, AI credits, guest contributors) is missing or "on request".
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
Plan structures are public — a trial and developer plan, a partner plan, monthly billing, free sign-up, 24/7 in-app chat on all plans — so a buyer can see the shape of the offer. But we found no public information on any price figure, seat or locale limits, or the plan that unlocks approval workflows, so no annual cost for any team is computable from public pages. 1 2 4
The SME Marketer
A pricing page exists and says all plans include 24/7 in-app chat and Enterprise adds a dedicated Customer Success Manager, and free sign-up and a trial or developer plan are offered — but the captured pages state no price figure for any plan. I found no public information on seat prices, what a second locale costs, guest seats for my agency, or AI credits, so my annual cost is not computable from what is published; monthly billing runs for an indefinite term with termination on 14 days' notice. 1 2 4 6
The Localisation Lead
The captured pricing page names no figures at all — only that all plans include 24/7 in-app chat and Enterprise plans add a dedicated Customer Success Manager — while a free sign-up plus Trial and Developer plans exist. I found no public information on seat prices, locale or record limits, API and bandwidth rates, AI credits, or which plan unlocks approval workflows, so an annual cost cannot be computed from public pages. 2 4 6
The Web Engineer
The captured pricing page names plan tiers and their support inclusions — 24/7 in-app chat on all plans, a dedicated Customer Success Manager and customized onboarding on Enterprise — and a free signup plus time-limited trial and developer plans exist. But I found no public price figures anywhere: no seat prices, no locale, record, API or bandwidth limits, no overage rates and no statement of where approval workflows or SSO begin, so an annual cost cannot be computed from public pages alone. 2 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page states support inclusions per plan, all plans including 24/7 in-app chat and Enterprise adding a dedicated Customer Success Manager, and the terms describe trial, developer, partner and monthly-billing subscriptions with 14-day termination effect. We found no public price figures and no stated limits for seats, locales, content records, API calls or AI credits, and no public information on which plan unlocks approval workflows or SSO, so an annual cost is not computable from the captured pages. 1 2 4 6
The Skeptic
A pricing page exists and speaks of plans — all with 24/7 in-app chat, Enterprise with a dedicated success manager — and the terms mention a trial, a developer plan, a partner plan and indefinite monthly billing with 14-day termination, but we found no public price figures anywhere: no seat price, no limits or overage rates for locales, records or API calls, and no named plan where approval workflows or SSO begin. An annual cost for a given team cannot be computed from the captured pages. 1 2 4 6
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Kontent.ai
Is Kontent.ai European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Kontent.ai as EU-Made.
Where does Kontent.ai store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Kontent.ai have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Kontent.ai?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates CoreMedia (3/5), Storyblok (2.5/5) and Contently (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 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 CoreMedia (EU origin, foreign-owned). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Kontent.ai alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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 — Legal entity, Subprocessors. 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.
- 23 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 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
- 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 pricing 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 subprocessors 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 legal 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. 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 kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap kontent.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →