CRM

Close

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Elastic Inc. (Close) · www.close.com

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Solo Seller v1.2 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Sales Ops Lead v1.0 · The RevOps Integrator v1.0 · The Migrator v1.1 · The Skeptic v1.2 · rubric v1 · evaluated 15 Sep 2026

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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Knows a CRM is a database of other people's personal data before it is a sales tool. Optimizes for GDPR posture: EU hosting, DPA, subprocessor hygiene, consent fields, retention and deletion that actually delete. Rejects US-default hosting and enrichment features that scrape contacts from the open web.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Contact & data model

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The evidence evidences leads/contacts and a pipeline and nothing more — no custom fields, no required fields, no dedupe or merge tooling. A CRM is a database of other people's personal data before it is a sales tool, and zero evidence of hygiene tooling means duplicates of data subjects accumulate unchecked; the objects exist, the model's depth is unproven. 1 2

Report an error

Pipeline & forecasting

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A 'pipeline' channel is listed and an AI agent claims to 'update your CRM', but there is no evidence of stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecasting, or any report a finance department would recognize. I cannot credit forecasting or enforcement the evidence does not evidence, so this sits just above the bare-kanban anchor. 1 2

Report an error

Automation & workflows

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

'Workflows not included' is stated flatly for Solo and Essentials, so automation exists but is a tier gate rather than a core tool — the exact upsell pattern the anchors penalize. The evidence never evidences multi-step sequences, branching, or delays, so I score at the simple-rules anchor with no depth credit. 2 1

Report an error

Integrations & API

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A REST API, webhooks, and even an MCP server are on record, which is more first-class treatment of external systems than most US-default vendors show. But 'connects to your favorite sales, marketing, and support tools' is marketing copy with no named integrations, no email/calendar sync detail, and no documented API limits — good foundations, unproven depth. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

US entity at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas with no EU hosting, no DPA, no subprocessor list anywhere in the evidence — rubric level 0 by the letter. Worse for a DPO: Chloe is an AI agent that calls data subjects on metered credits with no processing terms in evidence, and the only retention statement is a vague 'limited period before deletion' applying to abandoned trials. 1 2

Report an error

Import, export & exit

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The evidence is silent on import and export entirely; the only exit path evidenced is the REST API, with no object coverage or limits stated. Deletion appears only for abandoned trial data — no full-fidelity export, no migration tooling, no data-return terms; exit is unevidenced, and I score it accordingly. 1 2

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Four tiers carry real per-user monthly prices with change-anytime terms, so the sticker invoice is computable. But the annual price is only 'SAVE UP TO 50%' — the actual annual invoice is not — and Chloe's credit metering means the AI bill is unknown until it is rung up, while workflows sit behind the $99 tier. Usage-metered opacity caps this at the anchor. 2 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Legal entity	Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified	0/3 pts	3 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

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. Entity name is taken only from the privacy policy; the site footer instead shows '111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500, Austin, Texas 78701, United States' and no trade register is cited anywhere.
Weak sourcing — 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.

We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
38 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
24 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
9 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
6 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
4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
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

Do you know more about Close? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (13)

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

1 Vendor homepage www.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
2 Vendor pricing page www.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 21 Aug 2026 Details →
3 Privacy policy close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
4 Contact & data model — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
6 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
7 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
8 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
9 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
12 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
13 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →