CRM
Firmao
EU-Made 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 Firmao sp. z o.o. · firmao.net
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
Firmao is a CRM from a Łódź-based Polish vendor whose bench standing rests mainly on integrations, which scored 5-6 — the highest of any criterion: a native directory heavy on Polish-market e-commerce, telephony and accounting, two-way Outlook email sync, Google and Outlook calendar sync, a Zapier bridge claimed to reach over a thousand applications, and a documented API activated with a single click. Sales pipeline scores 1-2, the weakest outside pricing transparency: the captured pages show only module names — Sales management (CRM) and Reports and analyses — and we found no public information on stages, forecasting or win/loss capture. Automation scores 3 with no spread for single-trigger website-form automation, and judges note richer flows depend on Zapier. The splits run 2-3 on sovereignty, data portability and contact management: the Polish legal entity earns credit with some judges, while the data protection officer holds at 2 because hosting location, a data processing agreement and subprocessors are unevidenced; portability's higher scores credit the API, its lower ones the silence on export completeness; contact management splits over unevidenced dedupe and merge tooling.
Speaks for it
- Integrations scored 5-6, the highest of any criterion, on native connectors for e-commerce (Allegro, Shoper, PrestaShop, WooCommerce), telephony and accounting
- Two-way Outlook email sync and Google and Outlook calendar sync are listed natively, with a Zapier bridge claimed to reach over a thousand applications
- API documentation is downloadable, and the API activates with a single click in the company settings tab
- Website form fills automatically create customer records and assign tasks to employees
- The vendor presents as a Polish spółka z o.o. — Łódź address, NIP 7252063825 — and part of WeNet Group
Held against it
- Sales pipeline scored 1-2; the captured pages evidence only module names, and we found no public information on stages, forecasting or win/loss capture
- Contact management scored 2-3; we found no public information on custom fields, required fields, deduplication or merge tooling
- Sovereignty scores split 2-3; we found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or subprocessors
- Data portability scored 2-3; we found no public information on import tooling, export completeness or contractual data-return terms
- The captured pages give different company names for the vendor
Best for
- You sell through Polish or regional e-commerce platforms such as Allegro, Shoper, PrestaShop or WooCommerce and want orders, products and customer data synchronized into the CRM
- You work in Outlook and want two-way email sync plus calendar event synchronization with Google or Outlook
- You have a developer who can use the documented API, activated with a single click, to synchronize internal IT systems
- You want invoicing, offers and orders, warehouse management, tasks and projects, and customer service modules alongside the CRM
Avoid if
- You need a forecast your finance department can sign off on — sales pipeline scored 1-2, and the captured pages evidence only module names
- Your data protection officer must see a data processing agreement and subprocessor list before purchase — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You are migrating an existing contact database and need dedupe, merge and import-mapping tooling verified first — contact management scored 2-3 with that hygiene unverifiable from public pages
- Your exit plan requires documented export of notes, activities and files — data portability scored 2-3, and judges warn an exit here is a development project
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 captured pages list a sales module alongside invoicing, offers and orders, warehouse and customer service, which implies records connect somewhere, but I found no public information on custom fields, field types, required fields, dedupe or merge — nothing here tells me my messy import will land clean. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
A sales management module is named, and customer and company records are shown being created automatically by website forms and third-party tools, which at least evidences relations between people and companies. But we found no public information on custom fields, field validation, deduplication or merge tooling, required fields, or permissioned access to records — none of the hygiene a database of contacts needs can be verified from the captured pages. 1 3 4
The Sales Ops Lead
The published module list puts companies, offers, orders, invoices, warehouse items, tasks and customer service records around the CRM, so this is more than a flat address book. But we found no public information on custom field types, field validation, required fields, or deduplication and merge tooling — the hygiene a 40-seat database lives or dies on. 1 3 4
The RevOps Integrator
The confirmed facts name a CRM module and show customers, companies, orders and tasks being created through integrations, but I found no public information on custom fields, deduplication, required fields, or relationships beyond the standard objects. For a system positioned at the center of a revenue stack, that silence on the data model itself is a real gap. 1 3
The Migrator
The module list spans sales, invoicing, orders and warehouse, and the integration descriptions confirm companies, tasks, orders and products exist as records — more than a flat address book. But we found no public information on custom fields, required fields, dedupe or merge tooling, which is the hygiene that decides whether a migration lands clean, so I am scoring that silence. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The captures name a sales-management module, and integrations reference customer records and companies, but beyond module names we found no public information on custom fields, required fields, deduplication or merge tooling. The standard objects appear to exist; the data-hygiene story is entirely unevidenced. 1 4 3
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
All I can see is a Reports and analyses line in a feature list; I found no public information on pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture or any forecast view, so I have no evidence a process is enforced or that anything rolls up. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
A "Reports and analyses" module is listed among the product modules, and that is the entirety of the pipeline evidence. We found no public information on pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecasts, quota tracking or a report builder — nothing evidences an enforced process or anything rolling up. 1 4
The Sales Ops Lead
The captured pages name a sales management module and a reports and analyses module and stop there. We found no public information on pipeline stages, required fields per stage, win/loss capture, forecast views or quota tracking — nothing here lets me enforce a process or produce a forecast a CFO would accept. 1 4
The RevOps Integrator
Only module names — sales management and reports and analyses — speak to this; I found no public information on stages, stage requirements, forecasting, quota tracking or win/loss capture. A finance department has nothing here to sign off on, and invoices flowing to Merit Aktiva is accounting plumbing, not pipeline enforcement. 1 3
The Migrator
Sales management and reports appear as named modules, but the captured pages show nothing of pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture or forecasting. I found no public information on any forecast view, quota tracking or custom reporting, so there is nothing here a finance department could lean on. 1 4
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 one concrete workflow shown is a website form that creates a customer record and assigns tasks — genuine if-this-then-that — plus Zapier and email-campaign connections, but I found no public information on multi-step in-product workflows, delays or branching. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Website form fills create customer records and assign tasks to employees, and connectors such as GetResponse and Woodpecker push contacts and email campaigns — simple trigger-then-action work. We found no public information on multi-step sequences, branching or delays inside the product; anything richer appears to depend on Zapier rather than native automation. 3 4
The Sales Ops Lead
Website forms can auto-create customer records and assign tasks, and the Zapier bridge claims over a thousand connected apps. We found no public information on a native multi-step workflow builder, branching, delays or lead routing, so this reads as trigger-and-post rather than real pipeline discipline. 3 4
The RevOps Integrator
Record-level automation is real and evidenced: website forms create customer records and auto-assign tasks, and Zapier wiring through Hive, Landingi and PandaDoc automates cross-system steps. What I did not find is a native workflow builder with branching, delays or routing — the automation muscle looks borrowed from Zapier rather than built in. 3 4
The Migrator
Evidenced automation is real but shallow: website forms that create customer records and assign tasks, and Zapier flows that create tasks and companies or attachments from invoices. We found no public information on an in-product workflow builder, delays, branching, sequences or lead routing, which caps this at simple trigger-to-action. 3 4
The Skeptic
The only concrete in-product automation evidenced is a website form that creates a customer record and assigns a task — classic single-trigger if-this-then-that — plus whatever you assemble through the Zapier connector. We found no public information on multi-step workflows, branching, delays or sequence analytics. 4 3
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
Two-way email and calendar synchronization for Outlook and Google, roughly thirty-plus native connections heavy on e-commerce and telephony, a Zapier bridge and a documented API I can switch on with a single click; what's missing is public evidence of webhooks, OAuth apps or stated API limits. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The native directory is substantial — calendar sync for Google and Outlook, email sync for Outlook, telephony, e-commerce, accounting — plus Zapier claimed to reach over a thousand applications, and an API documented, downloadable, and activated with a single click. We found no public information on webhooks, OAuth apps, rate limits, or write parity with the interface, and no email sync for Gmail was evidenced, which keeps this short of the deeper tiers. 3 4
The Sales Ops Lead
Two-way Outlook email sync and Google/Outlook calendar sync are listed natively, alongside roughly two dozen native connectors concentrated on e-commerce and Polish-market tools, a marketplace, and downloadable API documentation activatable with one click. We found no public information on webhooks, OAuth apps, rate limits or API parity with the interface, which caps this below the top band. 3 4
The RevOps Integrator
The strongest area by far: two-way email sync with Outlook, event synchronization with Google and Outlook calendars, a documented API activated with a single click, an integration marketplace, and a native directory with real regional depth — Allegro, Shoper, Base.com, IdoSell, PrestaShop, WooCommerce, telephony and accounting included. It stops short of the top of the scale because I found no public information on webhooks, OAuth apps or API limits, several natives read one-way with orders synchronized into Firmao rather than with it, and deeper API detail is deferred to a contact email. 3 4
The Migrator
This is the strongest area: thirty-plus native connections across e-commerce, telephony, accounting and messaging, Outlook email synchronization plus Google and Outlook calendar sync, a Zapier bridge claimed to reach over a thousand applications, and a documented API activated with a single click. Depth is unproven — we found no public information on rate limits, webhook delivery, or whether the API covers everything the interface does — so I land just above the middle rather than near the top. 3 4
The Skeptic
Two-way Outlook email sync, Google and Outlook calendar sync, a downloadable API activated in one click, and a native directory of roughly two dozen mostly Polish-market e-commerce, telephony and accounting connections put this at a solid mid-table showing. The 'over 1,000 integrations' headline leans on Zapier's app count rather than native work, and we found no public information on webhooks, OAuth apps or API parity with the interface. 3 4
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
A Łódź address, NIP number and Polish legal form point to a European entity, but I found no public information on where data is hosted, on a data processing agreement, or on any subprocessor list, and the WeNet Group membership only deepens the ownership question. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor presents as a Polish spółka z o.o. with a Łódź address and NIP, part of WeNet Group, which is above the US-entity baseline — but that is where the assurance ends. We found no public information on hosting location or an EU region, on a data processing agreement, on subprocessors and any exposure to US legal reach, or on retention and deletion controls; for a system holding other people's personal data, this silence cannot support a higher score. 1 4
The Sales Ops Lead
A Polish spółka z o.o. with a Łódź address and a NIP number puts the legal entity in the EU, and the vendor states it is part of WeNet Group. We found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list, so the residency and processor chain a data protection officer needs are unevidenced. 1 4
The RevOps Integrator
The vendor is a Polish company — Firmao Polska Sp. z o.o., a NIP number and a Łódź address on the page, and part of WeNet Group — but I found no public information on where data is hosted, on a DPA, or on subprocessors. An EU entity alone does not let a DPO sign anything without the paperwork. 1 4
The Migrator
The vendor is a Polish company — Łódź address, Sp. z o.o. legal form, Polish tax registration number — and that European anchor is real. Everything a data protection officer asks next is dark: we found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list, and the only corporate detail captured beyond the entity is membership in WeNet Group. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The confirmed facts stop at a Polish tax number, a Łódź address and group membership in WeNet Group — the captured pages even give different company names for the vendor ('Firmao sp. z o.o.' and 'Firmaa Polska Sp. z o.o.' aside, one says 'Firmao Polska Sp. z o.o.'). We found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement, so a DPO has nothing to sign. 4 1 3
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 API documentation is downloadable and activation takes one click, so a determined developer has some exit path, but I found no public information on import, export formats, or whether history and attachments leave with me when I go. 4
The Data Protection Officer
The documented API, claimed to enable full synchronization with external systems, is the only evidenced route for data in and out. We found no public information on self-serve import with field mapping, on export coverage of notes, activities, files and relations, or on contractual data-return terms — exit, as far as the captured pages show, is a development project. 3 4
The Sales Ops Lead
A documented, downloadable API activatable with one click is described as enabling full synchronization with internal systems, which is the backbone of getting data out programmatically. We found no public information on CSV import with mapping, guided migration from other CRMs, or export completeness, so whether history, activities and files survive a move is not shown. 3 4
The RevOps Integrator
Beyond an API said to integrate any external system, I found no public information on import tooling, export coverage of notes, activities or files, or data-return terms. Exit is where lock-in shows, and nothing captured here evidences a path out with history intact. 4
The Migrator
The only road out I can see is the API: documentation downloadable from the page, one-click activation, and a claim of full synchronization with internal IT systems, which makes a rebuild-elsewhere effort plausible. But we found no public information on import tooling, self-serve export, whether export carries notes, activities and files, or contractual data-return terms — an exit here would be an engineering project with no published map. 3 4
The Skeptic
A documented API with one-click activation is the only thread here; we found no public information on self-serve export, import mapping, migration tooling or contractual data-return terms. Getting out with history, attachments and relations intact is exactly the question the public pages never answer. 3 4
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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 vendor's pricing page was captured and yielded no figures at all — no tier prices, no billing period, no VAT treatment — so I could not compute even a one-seat invoice from public information, and that is the first thing I check before I swipe my card. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A pricing page exists on the vendor's site, yet no price figures, tier structure, billing period, seat minimums or VAT treatment were confirmed from it. We found no public information that would let a buyer compute a single-seat or thirty-seat invoice from the published material, which sits at the bottom of what I can credit. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The vendor's pricing page is in the reviewed set, but no price figures, tier definitions, seat minimums, billing period splits or VAT treatment were confirmed from it. We found no public information on the actual numbers, so the invoice at three or thirty seats cannot be computed from public pages alone. 2
The RevOps Integrator
A vendor pricing page was captured but the confirmed facts include no tier prices, per-seat figures, billing periods or VAT treatment, so a buyer cannot compute a real invoice from what is public here. I found no public information on seat minimums or renewal rules either. 2 1
The Migrator
The pricing page was captured, yet it confirmed no price, tier, billing period, seat minimum or VAT treatment, and no other captured page contributes a figure. I found no public information on what this product costs, so no invoice — three seats or thirty — can be computed from what is public. 1 2
The Skeptic
The vendor's own pricing page was captured and produced not one confirmable number — no tier price, billing period, VAT treatment, seat minimum or renewal rule. We found no public information on any actual price, so no invoice at any seat count can be worked out from the public pages. 2 1
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 | Incorporated in PL ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited 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 15 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 — Legal entity. The country name is never written out; PL is derived from the Polish NIP tax register number, the Łódź street address and the Polish Sp. z o.o. legal form, with no commercial register (e.g. KRS) cited.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (firmao.net/en, firmao.net/en/price, firmao.io/integrations, firmao.io/api-documentation). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (firmao.net/en, firmao.net/en/price, firmao.io/integrations, firmao.io/api-documentation). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
Sources (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.