CRM
Attio
UK / wider Europe Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Attio Ltd · attio.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Attio is a CRM judged almost entirely from a granular pricing page and a homepage tagline. Strongest is contact & data model, credited for a tier-gated custom-object model — up to 3 objects on Free, 5 on Plus, 12 on Pro, unlimited on Enterprise — though dedupe, merge and field validation are unevidenced. Weakest are pipeline & forecasting, where the only evidence is the line 'builds pipeline, advances deals', and import, export & exit, silent on import, export and API access. The genuine split is automation: higher scores credit bulk email — 10 at once on Free, 50 on paid, 200 to unlimited emails/mo — while lower ones call it a manual blast with no triggers, sequences or workflow builder evidenced. Email and calendar sync is the one integration evidenced, with no API, webhooks or directory behind it. No currency price for Plus or Pro is on record, Enterprise is custom billed annually, and the evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record'.
Speaks for it
- Custom objects are real and tier-gated, rising to 12 on Pro and unlimited on Enterprise
- A free tier covers up to 3 seats with no credit card required
- Per-plan limits for seats, records, objects, storage, emails and credits are published in detail
- Email and calendar sync is evidenced, scaling from 1 to 3+ accounts per user by plan
- Records capacity reaches 1,000,000 on Pro and custom on Enterprise
Held against it
- The real invoice is uncomputable: no currency price for Plus or Pro, no overage rates on the seat and workspace credit meters, Enterprise custom billed annually
- The only pipeline evidence is the homepage line 'builds pipeline, advances deals'
- Import, export and API access are unevidenced, leaving no exit path on record
- No API, webhooks or integration directory is evidenced beyond email and calendar sync
- The evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record', with US-led funding flagged for control verification
Best for
- You need a multi-object data model with custom objects and will bring your own data hygiene
- You are a team of up to 3 wanting to start on a free tier with no credit card required
- Your integration needs stop at two-way email and calendar sync
- You want per-plan caps on records, storage, emails and credits documented up front
Avoid if
- You need pipeline stages, forecasts and reports a finance team will sign off on
- You need import, export or API access — for migration or data subject requests
- You must be able to compute the invoice before signing
- You require a published DPA, hosting region or subprocessor list
The scores
Contact & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Depth and hygiene of the core records — contacts, companies, deals, custom fields, deduplication.
0 — A flat address book; no relations between people, companies and deals.
3 — The standard three objects exist but customization is cosmetic: few field types, no required fields, duplicates accumulate unchecked.
5 — Custom fields across objects, basic dedupe on create, activity history on the record; complex models still need workarounds.
8 — Rich field types with validation, merge and dedupe tooling, relationships beyond the standard model, permissioned field access.
10 — A genuinely modelable system: custom objects or equivalent, bulk hygiene tooling, field-level history — the data model bends to the business, not the reverse.
The Solo Seller
Custom objects exist and are tier-gated — 3 on Free, 5 on Plus, 12 on Pro, unlimited only at Enterprise — so the model bends beyond cosmetic, but the evidence says nothing about field types, required fields, dedupe, merges, or activity history. Tier-hostaged objects plus zero hygiene evidence keeps me under the mid anchor. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Custom objects are real and tiered (3/5/12/unlimited by plan), which is structural modelling, not cosmetic — but the evidence says nothing about field types, validation, dedupe, merge, or field-level permissions. For a database of other people's personal data, unevidenced dedupe and hygiene means records I cannot trust for GDPR accuracy, so I stop below the 5 anchor. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The plan table shows a real multi-object model — up to 12 objects on Pro, unlimited on Enterprise — which is more than a flat address book. But the record is silent on everything that keeps a 40-seat database clean: field types, validation, required fields, dedupe, merge. I can credit the model's shape, not its hygiene. 2
The RevOps Integrator
The only data-model fact on record is objects-by-plan — up to 3/5/12/custom objects by tier — so custom objects are real, not cosmetic. But the evidence says nothing about field types, dedupe, merge tooling, activity history or relationships, and the object count is aggressively tier-gated; a modelable shell with no evidenced hygiene. 2
The Migrator
The only data-model fact on record is an object-count ladder — 3 objects on Free, 12 on Pro, unlimited on Enterprise — so custom objects plausibly exist but your model's depth is metered by plan. Dedupe, merge, field validation, activity history: not one word, and I've imported into a CRM with no dedupe story — the silence is the story. 2
The Skeptic
Custom objects exist but the data model is a billing lever — Free gets 3 objects, Pro 12, Enterprise 'unlimited'. Zero evidence of dedupe, merge, field validation or record history, so data hygiene is unknowable from this sheet. 2
Pipeline & forecasting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the pipeline enforces a process and produces reporting a finance department accepts.
0 — A kanban of deals with amounts; nothing is enforced, nothing rolls up.
3 — Multiple pipelines and stage probabilities exist, but no required fields per stage and only canned reports.
5 — Stage requirements, win/loss capture and standard forecast views; custom reporting is limited or an add-on.
8 — Enforceable process (required fields, stage gates, routing), custom report builder, forecast by team and period with quota tracking.
10 — Forecasting a CFO signs: weighted and commit-based views, historical snapshots, attainment tracking, and reporting composable enough to answer questions the vendor never anticipated.
The Solo Seller
The only pipeline evidence is homepage copy — 'builds pipeline, advances deals' — which is marketing, not process. Nothing in the evidence evidences stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecasting, or any report builder; the pricing matrix itemizes quotas and no pipeline features at all. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only pipeline evidence is the homepage tagline about 'building pipeline' and 'advancing deals' — marketing positioning, not capability. No stages, no required fields, no win/loss capture, no forecast or report of any kind appears in this sheet, so functionally nothing rolls up. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
The only pipeline evidence on record is the marketing line that Attio 'builds pipeline, advances deals' — nothing evidences stages, stage gates, required fields, forecast views, quota tracking or any report builder. The pricing page's detailed limit tables never mention a pipeline or reporting feature at all, and marketing copy is not a capability my forecast can stand on. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
The sole pipeline evidence is tagline — 'builds pipeline, advances deals' — with no pipelines, stage gates, required fields, forecasts or reports anywhere, and the pricing comparison itemizes credits, storage and email caps but not one pipeline capability. I cannot confirm this thing enforces a sales process at all, let alone produces reporting finance would accept. 2 1
The Migrator
Everything on record is the homepage claim that Attio 'builds pipeline, advances deals, and grows accounts around the clock'. No stages, no required fields, no win/loss capture, no forecast or report evidence — no finance department signs off on this record. 1
The Skeptic
A single marketing line about building pipeline and advancing deals is the entire evidence base — no stages, probabilities, forecast views, or reports anywhere. Category positioning is not product evidence; absence scores at the floor. 1
Automation & workflows
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Triggers, sequences and routing that remove manual work without a consultant.
0 — No automation beyond email templates.
3 — Simple if-this-then-that on records; no multi-step sequences, no branching.
5 — Multi-step workflows with delays and branching, email sequences, basic lead routing — capped by tier or count.
8 — Full workflow builder across objects with webhooks as steps, round-robin routing, sequence analytics.
10 — Automation as infrastructure: versioned workflows, error handling, per-step logs, and limits generous enough that the feature is not its own upsell.
The Solo Seller
The only automation-adjacent facts are tiered email sending — 10 at once on Free, 50 on paid, 200 to unlimited emails/mo — plus 'agentic revenue... around the clock' copy. No triggers, no sequences, no workflow builder appear anywhere in the evidence. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The single automation-adjacent fact is a capped manual bulk-send (10 emails on free, 50 on paid); the 'around the clock' agentic line is a slogan, not a workflow builder. No triggers, sequences, branching or routing are evidenced anywhere, so I cannot credit anything past the floor. 2 1
The Sales Ops Lead
What is evidenced is bulk email — 10 or 50 at a time, capped at 200–1,000 emails/mo on the tiers most teams actually run — which is template blasting, bottom-anchor territory. The 'agentic revenue' positioning gestures at automation, but no trigger, sequence, branching or routing capability appears anywhere in the record. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
The 'grows accounts around the clock' agentic claim is the only automation signal, and the one concrete feature is manual bulk email at 10–50 messages at a time — a blast, not a sequence. No triggers, branching, delays, routing or workflow builder appear anywhere in the record. 2 1
The Migrator
Tier-capped bulk email sending (10–50 at once) and monthly email limits (200 to unlimited) prove metered sending infrastructure, and 'agentic revenue' positioning claims automation exists — but no workflow builder, branching, routing or logs appear anywhere. Automation sold as an upsell ladder is exactly the smell I look for. 2 1
The Skeptic
The only automation-adjacent facts are bulk email caps and credit meters; no triggers, sequences, routing or webhooks are evidenced. The 'agentic' pitch is priced via seat plus workspace credits — the AI-metered-by-credits pattern wrapped around workflows this sheet never proves exist. 2 1
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Two-way email/calendar sync, native connections, and an API that treats external systems as first-class.
0 — No API, no sync; data enters by CSV and leaves never.
3 — One-way email logging (BCC), a handful of Zapier triggers, a read-mostly API.
5 — Two-way email and calendar sync for the major providers, a documented REST API with sane limits, a modest native directory.
8 — Deep native integrations for the revenue stack, webhooks, OAuth apps, API parity with the UI for core objects.
10 — An ecosystem: public API covering everything the UI does, event streams, a marketplace, and sync so reliable the CRM can be the system of record without being the only system.
The Solo Seller
Email and calendar sync is real but tier-hostaged: 1 account per user on Free and Plus, 2 on Pro, 3+ only at Enterprise — a solo seller with two inboxes must buy Pro. No API, webhooks, or integration directory shows up in the evidence, so this barely clears the BCC-logging floor. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Email and calendar sync is genuinely evidenced, with per-user account counts escalating by plan (1/1/2/3+). But there is no evidence of an API, webhooks, or any native integration directory — and for me, no documented API means no evidenced programmatic route to extract data for data subject requests, which caps this well under the anchors that assume a real API. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Two-way email and calendar sync is real but tier-capped at 1–2 accounts per user from Free through Pro — a constraint my team would feel. Beyond sync there is not one line on an API, webhooks, or a native integration directory, so I cannot credit anchor-5's documented REST API. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Email and calendar sync is a real tiered feature — though one connected account per user until Pro is stingy for any real revenue team — but that is the entire integration story this sheet evidences: no API, no webhooks, no OAuth apps, no native directory. By this record the CRM talks to a mailbox and nothing else, which for me is a closed ecosystem until proven otherwise. 2
The Migrator
Email and calendar sync is real and priced per account — 1 account per user on Free/Plus, 2 on Pro, 3+ on Enterprise, which beats BCC logging. Beyond that the registry is empty: no API, no webhooks, no integration directory. 2
The Skeptic
Email and calendar sync is confirmed but rationed by tier (1 account on Free/Plus, 2 on Pro, 3+ on Enterprise). No API, webhooks, or integration directory appear anywhere in the evidence — the one known connection is also the one being gated. 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where other people's personal data actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA.
0 — US entity, US-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad and undocumented.
5 — EU hosting selectable at signup, published DPA and subprocessor list; core processing still touches US entities.
8 — EU entity or EU-default hosting with published subprocessors, consent-friendly fields, retention and deletion controls; residual US exposure named and narrow.
10 — European entity, EU-only processing including subprocessors, deletion that provably deletes — sovereignty a DPO can sign off without a caveat file.
The Solo Seller
Attio is a London, UK entity per the vendor's own site, which beats a US entity, but the record shows no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting region, and US-led funding flagged for control verification. Nothing here a DPO could sign without a caveat file. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Attio Ltd is a London entity, which alone keeps it off the US-entity floor, but the evidence records no sovereignty attributes at all: no hosting region, no DPA, no subprocessor list, no retention or deletion controls, and consent fields are entirely unevidenced. US-led funding in the provenance note is a control question I would demand answered before signing anything. 1 1
The Sales Ops Lead
The record states 'no sovereignty attributes on record': no DPA, no hosting location, no subprocessor list, and the provenance flags US-led funding to 'verify control before Phase E'. The only European signal is the London registration, and the homepage captures disclose nothing about where data lives or under whose law — nothing a DPO could sign. 1 1
The RevOps Integrator
The evidence records no sovereignty attributes at all — no DPA, no hosting region, no subprocessor list on any captured page. A London entity is a start, but provenance itself flags US-led funding as an unresolved control question, and with zero published posture I cannot distinguish this from US-reachable processing. 1
The Migrator
A UK entity with US-led funding is all that's on record — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting region, no deletion controls; the evidence itself states 'no sovereignty attributes on record'. US-led money into a London entity is precisely the control question that goes unanswered here. 1 1
The Skeptic
The evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting disclosure — and provenance flags US-led funding behind the UK entity. A European entity keeps this off the zero floor; an undocumented subprocessor chain keeps it from going higher. 1
Import, export & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting in with history intact, and out with everything — the anti-lock-in criterion.
0 — Import is a support ticket; export is contacts-only CSV missing notes, activities and files.
3 — Self-serve CSV import with mapping; export covers main objects but drops activity history, attachments or relations.
5 — Guided migration from major competitors, full-object CSV export, API access sufficient to rebuild the database elsewhere with effort.
8 — Complete export (all objects, history, files) self-serve in open formats, import with dedupe and dry-run, no API metering that prices exit out of reach.
10 — Exit as a feature: documented full-fidelity export, migration tooling both directions, and contractual data-return terms — leaving is a weekend, which is exactly why you can stay.
The Solo Seller
The evidence is entirely silent on import, export, and API access — the pricing page counts credits, records, and storage but never mentions a way to get data out. Silence on exit is the loudest signal a buyer gets. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence is completely silent on import, export and migration — the pricing page's capability tables itemise records, storage and email caps but not one word on getting data out. On this evidence base there is no exit path and no deletion tooling, which is a GDPR problem before it is a lock-in problem. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The record is silent in both directions: no import tooling, no export format, no migration offer, no API that could serve as an exit path — even the unusually detailed limit tables say nothing about getting data in with history or out at all. By the anchors, silence on portability is the bottom. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Complete silence on getting data in or out: not even CSV import or export is evidenced, and the pricing comparison lists no migration or export capability among its granular limits. The only data-volume facts are record caps (50k rising to custom), which measure the size of the trap, not the door. 2
The Migrator
The registry is completely silent on import, export, migration tooling and API access — a pricing page that documents credits, records and storage caps to the unit but not one line on getting data out. Nothing evidenced means nothing exists, so I score exit at the floor: assume leaving is a project. 1 2
The Skeptic
Total silence on import, export, and API access; the only exit-relevant number is a record cap that varies by tier. A vendor that publishes no exit path gets lock-in as the working assumption. 2
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per seat, per month, at renewal — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but the tiers most buyers need are unpriced, or per-seat maths is obscured by bundles, minimums or mandatory onboarding fees.
5 — Most tiers carry real numbers with billing period and VAT treatment stated, but at least one commonly needed capability hides in an unpriced tier or usage-metered add-on.
8 — Every tier priced publicly including annual/monthly split; limits, seat minimums and overage rules stated; only genuine enterprise contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: every tier, add-on, usage meter and renewal rule public, with a calculator or table that makes the invoice at 3 and 30 seats a two-minute exercise.
The Solo Seller
The public pricing page is unusually honest about scope — seats, records, objects, credits per plan, free up to 3 seats with no card required, no seat minimums. But the confirmed facts contain zero monetary figures, the dual credit meters (seat and workspace) can't be converted into an invoice, and Enterprise is custom annual, so I can't compute my own renewal bill from the evidence. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The plan structure and per-tier limits are public and a genuine free tier (3 seats, no card) exists. But no monetary price for Plus or Pro appears anywhere in the evidence, Enterprise is custom-billed-annually, and a two-layer metering system of seat credits plus workspace credits makes the real invoice uncomputable from these pages alone. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The limit tables are genuinely detailed — seats, records, objects, storage, email volumes per tier — but not a single currency figure for Plus or Pro appears on record, Enterprise is custom billed annually, and the seat-credit/workspace-credit meters come with no published consumption rates. I cannot compute a 40-seat Pro invoice from this page, which is precisely rubric level 3's failure mode. 2
The RevOps Integrator
The comparison table is unusually granular — seats, credits, records, storage, email caps — but no per-seat price figure appears anywhere in the record, the dual credit meter (seat credits 100→2,500, workspace credits 250→10,000) has no published overage rate, and Enterprise is custom-billed-annually. From what's captured, the real invoice is not computable. 2
The Migrator
Limits are documented exhaustively — seats, records, objects, storage, emails, sync accounts — but no currency price for Free, Plus or Pro is on record, Enterprise is custom-billed annually, and the dual credit meters (seat and workspace) have no published exchange rates or overage rules. The real invoice is not computable from this record. 2
The Skeptic
Free exists (3 seats, no card) but no per-seat price for Plus or Pro appears anywhere, Enterprise is custom-and-mandatory-annual, and the seat-plus-workspace credit system is a usage meter with no published overage rate — the invoice at 3 or 30 seats is not computable from these pages. Limits are disclosed honestly, which only makes the missing money numbers more conspicuous. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | Incorporated in GB ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 21 Aug 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 Services Agreement names a second entity: US customers accepting terms on or after 5 November 2025 contract with Attio Inc., a Delaware corporation, so the contracting jurisdiction depends on customer location.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Google Cloud Platform, Intercom and Anthropic are engaged through EU contracting entities in Dublin, but Google Cloud and Intercom are US-headquartered parents and OpenAI processes customer data via its US LLC.
- 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.
- 82 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
- 25 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 23 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
- 21 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
- 11 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
- 8 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 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 subprocessors 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
- 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage attio.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 21 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page attio.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page trust.attio.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice attio.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy — found from the homepage attio.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Contact & data model — found from sitemap docs.attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Contact & data model — found from sitemap docs.attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap attio.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →