CRM
Copper
Rest of world Report an errorPanel 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 Copper CRM, Inc. · www.copper.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
Copper's captured pages price the product cleanly but evidence little else. Its strongest criterion is pricing transparency: every tier publishes per-seat prices with the annual/monthly split ($23/$29, $59/$69, $99/$134), taxes explicitly excluded, contact caps of 2,500/15,000/unlimited stated up front, and a free trial with no credit card required. Integrations follows at 4-5, carried by Google Workspace depth in Gmail and Google Calendar plus an API & Embedded SDK, Okta SSO and Zapier — with sync evidence for Google only. The weakness is structural: sovereignty sits at 0 (San Francisco entity, 'no sovereignty attributes on record'), pipeline & forecasting spans 0 to 2 because neither page mentions pipelines, stages or forecasting, and contact & data model rests on contact caps alone. flagged splits show none above threshold; the visible pipeline & forecasting spread turns on how strictly judges score silence, with multi-currency on Business the only deal-adjacent fact. Automation clusters 2-3 around the Zapier proxy, and exit rests on a bare 'available' checkbox (import, export & exit 2-3).
Speaks for it
- All three tiers publish per-seat prices with the annual/monthly split ($23/$29, $59/$69, $99/$134) and taxes explicitly excluded
- Free trial requires no credit card — 'Start free, no credit card required'
- Google Workspace integration runs inside Gmail and Google Calendar (leads, conversations, files, tasks), holding integrations at 4-5
- API & Embedded integration SDK, Okta SSO and a Zapier connection to 5,000+ apps are on record
- Per-tier contact limits (2,500 / 15,000 / unlimited) are published up front, so capacity costs are visible before purchase
Held against it
- sovereignty scores 0: San Francisco entity, provenance rest of world, 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, subprocessor list or EU region appears in the captured evidence
- Neither captured page mentions pipelines, stages, win/loss capture or forecasting; pipeline & forecasting lands 0-2, with multi-currency on Business the only deal-adjacent fact
- Contact & data model is evidenced only by contact caps and a LinkedIn prospecting tool the DPO flags for its missing consent trail — no dedupe/merge, custom fields or company-deal relations in the evidence
- Automation is outsourced to Zapier with no native sequences, branching or routing evidenced, so workflows depend on a second subscription priced elsewhere
- Import, export & exit rests on a single 'Data import & export: available' boolean — export scope for notes, activity history and attachments is unevidenced
Best for
- You live in Google Workspace and want leads, conversations, files and tasks handled directly inside Gmail and Google Calendar
- You're a per-seat buyer who wants a computable invoice off the pricing page ($23/$29 to $99/$134) and a no-credit-card trial before committing
- You already automate through Zapier and want a connector to 5,000+ apps rather than a native workflow builder
- You want contact capacity limits (2,500 / 15,000 / unlimited) visible before purchase rather than discovered at overage
Avoid if
- You hold EU or other regulated personal data — the evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record', with no DPA, subprocessor list or EU hosting option in evidence
- You run forecast-driven pipeline management — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need Microsoft/Outlook sync, webhooks or documented API limits — sync evidence covers Google only
- You need provable data exit — only a bare 'Data import & export: available' boolean is on record (import, export & exit 2-3)
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
The only data-model fact on the evidence is a contact count cap per tier (2,500 / 15,000 / unlimited) — nothing on companies, deals, custom fields, required fields, dedupe or merge. I score what's evidenced: a contact store with a volume paywall, not a modelable system. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence evidences a contacts object with tiered caps (2,500 / 15,000 / unlimited) and a LinkedIn prospecting tool that creates prospect records, but nothing on company/deal relations, custom fields, required fields, dedupe or merge. A contact record is other people's personal data, and a data model this unevidenced cannot be audited for hygiene — I score the silence as absence. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The only data-model facts are per-plan contact caps (2,500 / 15,000 / unlimited) and a LinkedIn prospecting widget that adds contacts. No evidence of required fields, custom field types, dedupe or merge — by the anchors' treatment of silence, this sits below the 'standard three objects' bar. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
The only data-model facts on record are tiered contact caps (2,500 / 15,000 / unlimited) and multi-currency gated to Business — a meter on contacts, not a model. Nothing evidences companies, deals, custom fields, dedupe or merge tooling, so I can't credit depth the evidence never shows. 2
The Migrator
The evidence confirms contacts exist — tiered contact caps of 2,500 and 15,000 are the pricing page's loudest data-model fact — plus lead capture from LinkedIn, but says nothing about companies, deals, custom fields, required fields, or any dedupe or merge tooling. No dedupe evidence means duplicates accumulate unchecked, which is rubric level 3 territory, and the contact caps make data volume a billing event. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only data-model evidence in the evidence is a contact count per tier — 2,500 / 15,000 / 'unlimited' — which is a billing meter, not a data model. No custom fields, no dedupe or merge tooling, no evidenced relationships between people, companies and deals anywhere; a CRM that can't show hygiene features on its own pages gets no benefit of the doubt. 1 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 entire registry — homepage and pricing page — is silent on pipelines, stages, probabilities, forecasting and reporting; not even a deals object is evidenced. Unevidenced means absent, so this sits at the bottom anchor. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing in the registry — homepage or pricing page — mentions pipelines, stages, probabilities, win/loss capture or forecasting of any kind. Even the kanban-with-amounts floor of rubric level 0 is not evidenced, so I cannot credit a capability the evidence does not show. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The evidence contains no pipeline, stage, win/loss, forecast or report-builder fact at all — the closest is multi-currency on the Business tier. For forecast-grade reporting that absence is the information; I cannot evidence even a kanban with amounts. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Both captured pages are entirely silent on pipelines, stages, required fields and forecasting — not one word about deals rolling up anywhere. Absence is information here: I can't credit a process the vendor's own materials don't claim. 1 2
The Migrator
Complete silence on pipelines, stages, required fields, win/loss capture and forecasting — the only deal-adjacent fact in the entire sheet is multi-currency on the Business plan. I can't credit a process the vendor's own pages don't describe, so this scores just above the bare-kanban anchor. 2
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 route evidenced is the Zapier partnership connecting 5,000+ apps — if-this-then-that by proxy, metered by Zapier's plan rather than the product itself. No native workflows, sequences, delays or branching appear anywhere on the evidence. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only automation evidenced is outsourced: a Zapier partnership for 5,000+ apps, plus the LinkedIn prospecting shortcut that adds prospects from any website. No native triggers, multi-step sequences, branching or workflow builder appear anywhere in the evidence. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The sole automation evidence is the Zapier partnership ('connect Copper to 5,000+ other apps for workflow automation') — third-party glue, not a native builder. No sequences, branching or routing in evidence, so this is if-this-then-that territory, and only by proxy. 2
The RevOps Integrator
The only automation evidence is offloading to Zapier ('connect Copper to 5,000+ other apps for workflow automation') — automation rented from a third party, not native sequences, routing or workflow steps. No native triggers, delays or branching appear anywhere in the evidence. 2
The Migrator
The automation story is a Zapier checkbox ('5,000+ apps for workflow automation') — third-party if-this-then-that, not a native builder. No evidence of multi-step sequences, branching, routing or workflow analytics, and automations living in a connector mean they don't survive a migration. 2
The Skeptic
The entire automation story is outsourced to Zapier ('5,000+ apps for workflow automation'), meaning any real workflow costs a second subscription priced by someone else. No native triggers, sequences or routing are evidenced — rubric level 3 is charitable. 2
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
Deep Google Workspace integration (leads, conversations, files, tasks inside Gmail and Calendar) plus an API with embedded SDK, Zapier and Okta SSO. That clears the mid anchor for one major provider and an API, but there's no evidence of webhooks, OAuth apps, or depth beyond Google. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Google Workspace depth looks real — add leads, track conversations and manage tasks directly in Gmail and Calendar — and there is an API & Embedded integration SDK, Zapier and Okta SSO. But only Google is evidenced as a native provider, with no webhooks, OAuth apps or API parity shown, so this sits at mid-anchor. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Genuine Google Workspace depth (leads, conversations, files in Gmail and Calendar) plus an API & Embedded SDK, Okta SSO and 5,000+ Zapier apps. But sync evidence is Google-only — no Microsoft providers, no webhooks, no documented API limits — so it's a mid score, not a deep revenue-stack play. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Genuine depth on one axis: 'add leads, track conversations, find files or manage tasks directly in Gmail and Google Calendar' is real Google-native sync, plus an API & Embedded SDK, Okta SSO and Zapier. But that's a single-provider stack: no Microsoft/Exchange evidence, no webhooks, no OAuth app ecosystem or marketplace — mid-table, not a revenue-stack hub. 1 2
The Migrator
Genuine Google Workspace depth ('add leads, track conversations, find files or manage tasks directly in Gmail and Google Calendar') plus an API & embedded SDK, Okta SSO and Zapier. But sync is evidenced for Google only, and the API is a checkbox with no documented limits, webhooks or UI parity, so it sits just under the two-way-sync-for-major-providers anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
Genuine Google Workspace depth (Gmail, Calendar, Files) plus an API with embedded SDK, Okta SSO and Zapier reaches the anchor-5 line. But the directory is Google-shaped: no Outlook/Microsoft sync, no webhooks, no marketplace in evidence — 'major providers' is plural and this sheet proves exactly one. 1 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
US entity in San Francisco, provenance rest of world, and the evidence itself states 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no EU region, no subprocessor list. That is the exact definition of the bottom anchor. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Copper CRM, Inc. is a San Francisco entity with 'no sovereignty attributes on record': no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU region, no retention or deletion controls anywhere in the evidence. Worse, the LinkedIn prospecting feature harvests prospects from the open web with no consent trail — US-default hosting of other people's personal data plus open-web scraping is exactly what I reject. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Copper CRM, Inc., San Francisco; provenance rest of world; no sovereignty attributes on record — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU hosting option anywhere in evidence. That is rubric level 0 verbatim, and no DPO signs it. 1
The RevOps Integrator
US entity (San Francisco), USD pricing, and 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU hosting option anywhere in the capture. That's a textbook zero: other people's personal data would sit under US jurisdiction with nothing published about it. 1 2
The Migrator
Copper CRM, Inc., San Francisco, US, provenance rest of world, and 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU region anywhere on either captured page. That is the anchor-0 case verbatim; anyone with EU personal data here has no documented story on where it sits or under whose law. 1 2
The Skeptic
San Francisco entity, 'rest of world' provenance, zero sovereignty attributes on record: no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU hosting option anywhere in the captured evidence. That's the anchor-0 description verbatim — European personal data sits under US CLOUD Act reach and the vendor has published nothing to narrow it. 1 2
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
One bare checkbox: 'Data import & export: available.' No evidence on what export covers, whether activity history, attachments or relations survive, or what formats — I can't credit completeness the evidence never claims, and an exit door I can't see through is worth almost nothing. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Import & export is a bare 'available: true' checkbox alongside an API mention; nothing evidences full-object export, activity history, attachments, dedupe-aware import, dry-run or contractual data-return terms. Exit from a US vendor holding scraped contact data should be evidenced in detail, not implied by a checkbox — I give it the modest credit the flag and API support. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
A boolean 'import & export available' plus the API's existence is all I have — nothing evidences that export includes activity history, attachments or relations, and no dry-run or dedupe on import. Enough to clear 'support ticket' status, nothing more. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Import/export is confirmed as a bare boolean plus an API's existence — no evidence on which objects, whether activity history, files or relations survive export, or whether import dedupes. An unchecked claim is enough to clear a support-ticket import, not enough to call exit a feature. 2
The Migrator
The entire exit story is one pricing-page boolean — 'Data import & export: available' — with nothing on which objects export covers, whether notes, activity history and files ride along, whether import dedupes, or whether it's self-serve. A bare checkbox next to an existing API earns just enough credit to clear the support-ticket floor, but I've seen too many of these checkmarks to believe activity history survives them; scope is unproven, and unproven is unscoreable. 2
The Skeptic
'Data import & export: available' is a checkbox, not a capability — no scope, no objects, nothing on whether notes, activities or attachments survive the trip out. A pricing-page boolean is the thinnest exit promise a vendor can make; assume lock-in until proven otherwise. 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
All three tiers carry real per-seat numbers with annual/monthly split ($23/$29, $59/$69, $99/$134), USD with taxes explicitly excluded, free trial without a card, no seat minimums — my invoice at 3 seats is a two-minute exercise. It stays below 8 only because the tier contact caps (2,500 / 15,000) have no stated overage or upgrade rule, so the price is computable only until I outgrow a tier. 2
The Data Protection Officer
All three tiers carry public monthly and annual per-seat prices ($23/$29 to $99/$134), the annual discount is quantified (up to 26%), currency and tax treatment are stated, the free trial needs no card, and per-tier contact limits are explicit. Seat minimums and renewal rules are unstated and add-ons unenumerated, which keeps it shy of full computability. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Every tier carries per-seat prices with the annual/monthly split stated ($23/$29, $59/$69, $99/$134), taxes explicitly excluded, a card-free trial, and the contact caps published as limits. Renewal rules and seat minimums are silent, so not an 8 — but I can compute a 40-seat invoice off the page in two minutes. 2
The RevOps Integrator
A buyer can compute the invoice from this page alone; only unstated seat minimums and renewal rules keep it off 9-10. 2
The Migrator
All three tiers carry real per-seat numbers with the annual/monthly split published ($23/$29, $59/$69, $99/$134), taxes explicitly excluded, and capacity limits stated up front (2,500/15,000/unlimited contacts) so capacity pricing is visible before you commit. No seat minimums, overage meters or hidden tiers appear on the page — only the fuzzy 'up to 26% off' keeps it short of full computability. 2
The Skeptic
Credit where due: all three tiers carry real per-seat numbers with both billing periods and taxes-excluded treatment stated. But the invoice is only computable until the record meters bite — the 2,500 and 15,000 contact caps force a jump to $99/seat (+68% over Professional annual) with no overage rule published, and anything above Business is invisible. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | US by default ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. This is stricter than a default — Copper states it cannot store data anywhere else, so the US is the only available region, and hosting runs on unnamed third-party cloud services.
- 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.
- 9 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
- 7 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
- 7 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
- 6 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 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
- 3 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 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
- 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.copper.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.copper.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.copper.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.copper.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap support.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Contact & data model — found from sitemap support.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap support.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap www.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap support.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap support.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap www.copper.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →