CRM
Insightly
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 Insightly, Inc. (Unbounce) · www.insightly.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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Insightly, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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 standard objects are there — leads, contacts, deals, plus projects on Plus — as a 'single source of truth', but the evidence is silent on custom fields, required fields, dedupe or merge tooling. For my one-seat setup the base model would do; I just can't credit hygiene depth nothing on the page shows. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Leads, contacts, deals and projects exist with emails and calls rolled onto the record, but the evidence evidences no custom fields, validation, dedupe or merge tooling — anchor-3 territory where duplicates accumulate unchecked. For what is fundamentally a database of other people's personal data, the total absence of consent or purpose-limitation fields is the more worrying silence. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Leads, contacts and deals exist as a 'single source of truth' with emails and calls on the record, but there is no evidence of custom fields, required-field validation, dedupe or merge tooling anywhere — the hygiene layer a 40-seat team actually needs is pure inference. Comprehensive audit logging is the only depth signal, and it is gated to the top tier. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
The standard objects exist with activity on the record — leads, contacts, deals, 'emails & calls' — plus projects and Enterprise-tier pricebooks/quotes, but the evidence is silent on custom fields, dedupe, merge tooling, or field-level permissions. That's the standard model with activity history and no evidenced hygiene layer. 1 2
The Migrator
Objects go beyond the standard three — leads, contacts, deals, projects, and products/pricebooks/quotes at Enterprise — with emails and calls on the record. But there is zero evidence of custom fields, validation, merge or dedupe tooling; duplicates accumulating unchecked is the anchor-3 condition, and dedupe is my first question in any migration. 1 2
The Skeptic
The homepage name-checks lead status, contacts and deals — the standard trio — and Plus adds 'lead and contact management' and project management as bullets, but neither captured page evidences custom fields, dedupe, merge tooling or anything beyond the stock objects. Depth is unevidenced, and unevidenced is uneearned. 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
Deals and pipeline data are claimed, and Plus ships 'Advanced reports' and 'pre-built business dashboards' — which read as canned reporting to me. No evidence of required fields per stage, win/loss capture, or any forecast view, and quotes/pricebooks sit behind the $99 Enterprise tier. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Deals and lead status are tracked alongside 'Advanced reports' and 'Pre-built business dashboards' — canned reporting, in other words — with nothing on stage gates, required fields, probabilities or any forecast view. Nothing here suggests output a finance department would accept. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Deals, lead routing and 'pre-built business dashboards' are exactly the canned-report territory of the 3-anchor, and not one word in either page evidences stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecast views or quota tracking. Reporting that stops at a dashboard screenshot is not something my CFO signs — the forecasting core is entirely unevidenced. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Deals and lead assignment/routing are evidenced, but the reporting story is the vendor's own 'pre-built business dashboards' — canned by admission. Zero evidence of forecasting, stage gates, required fields per stage, or a custom report builder; nothing here produces a number a finance department would accept. 1 2
The Migrator
Pipeline data and 'Advanced reports' are named but nothing on stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecast views, quota tracking or snapshots. Canned reporting at best — not something a finance department signs. 1 2
The Skeptic
Pipeline data and deals are confirmed, and the reporting story is 'Advanced reports' and 'pre-built business dashboards' — canned by the vendor's own wording. No stage requirements, no forecast views, no quota or attainment tracking anywhere on the evidence; a finance department has nothing to sign. 1 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
'Workflow automation' and 'lead assignment and routing' exist — but only from Professional at $49/user, so the entry tier is manual work and automation is its own upsell, exactly what I reject. Beyond labels and 'customer journeys' marketing copy, there's no evidence of branching, delays, sequences, or analytics. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Workflow automation and lead assignment/routing are confirmed and tier-capped at Professional, with marketing 'customer journeys' on the homepage, but branching, delays and sequence analytics are entirely unevidenced — an honest interpolation between rubric level 3 and 5. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Workflow automation and lead assignment/routing are real but gated to Professional, and the 'customer journeys' tagline is the only hint of multi-step — no evidence of branching, delays, sequence analytics or webhooks as steps. Routing exists, so this lands between if-this-then-that and true multi-step, capped by tier exactly as the 5-anchor's downside describes. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Workflow automation and lead routing are gated to the Professional tier and marketing journeys exist, but there's no evidence of branching, delays, sequence analytics, or webhooks as workflow steps. The capability is real enough to name, tier-capped and depth-unevidenced. 1 2
The Migrator
Workflow automation, lead assignment and routing, and customer journeys are named features, hitting the mid-anchor — and workflow automation only arrives at Professional, tier-capped exactly as rubric level 5 warns. No evidence of branching, webhooks as steps, or per-step logs. 1 2
The Skeptic
Workflow automation and lead assignment/routing are confirmed but gated to the Professional tier, and 'customer journeys' on the homepage is a slogan, not a spec. No evidence of branching, delays, webhooks or sequence analytics, so this sits between if-this-then-that and real sequences. 1 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
AppConnect names a real directory — QuickBooks, Xero, Slack, Okta, Gong, Calendly, and more — which beats a Zapier stub. But no documented API, no webhooks, and no explicit two-way email/calendar sync appear anywhere on the evidence, so I can't take it as more than a modest native directory. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Thirteen named native connectors including Gmail, QuickBooks and Okta constitute a modest directory that fits rubric level 5, but the evidence shows no documented API, webhooks or two-way calendar sync. I note ZoomInfo in the connector list — a data-broker integration I would want a lawful-basis review of before ever enabling. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
The native directory is genuinely broad — QuickBooks, ZoomInfo, Gong, Calendly, Okta covers most of my revenue stack — but 'connects seamlessly' tells me nothing about two-way sync depth, and a documented API is never mentioned at all in either page. Strong connectors with zero API evidence is half the criterion at best. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The native directory genuinely reaches the revenue stack — QuickBooks Online, Xero, Gong, ZoomInfo, Calendly, Okta — which earns real credit. But the entire API and sync story is one marketing sentence about AppConnect: no documented REST API, no webhooks, no evidence the Gmail connector is two-way sync rather than logging, and Enterprise's 'integrations' as a tier feature smells like the deep connectivity is the upsell. 1 2
The Migrator
A genuinely decent native connector directory — QuickBooks, Xero, Workday, Okta, ZoomInfo, Shopify — but the evidence is entirely silent on a REST API, webhooks, and two-way email/calendar sync. A connection directory without a documented API is a one-way street in, and I've driven that road twice. 1
The Skeptic
AppConnect's connector directory is genuinely revenue-relevant — QuickBooks, Gong, ZoomInfo, Okta, Shopify — which earns real credit. But that's the entire story: no documented API, no webhooks, no OAuth apps, and 'connects with Gmail' states no sync direction. 1
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 San Francisco entity with 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — the homepage and pricing page mention no EU hosting, no DPA, no subprocessor list, and pricing is pure USD. If any of my customers' data touches the EU, these pages leave me with no answer at all. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
A San Francisco-incorporated vendor, USD-only pricing, and a the evidence recording zero sovereignty attributes: no EU hosting option, no DPA, no subprocessor list, no retention or deletion controls — the anchor-0 case verbatim. The ZoomInfo enrichment connector only adds open-web data-broker exposure on top of US-default processing. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
San Francisco entity per the evidence, no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU region on record, and every published price is USD — this is the anchor-0 profile exactly. There is nothing here a DPO could even begin to work with. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
US entity in San Francisco, and the evidence records no sovereignty attributes at all — neither captured page mentions hosting regions, a DPA, a subprocessor list, or retention and deletion controls. That meets the anchor-0 conditions; I'll allow one point only because hosting location is unverified rather than confirmed US. 1 2
The Migrator
San Francisco entity with zero sovereignty attributes on record — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU region mentioned anywhere on the vendor's own pages. Anchor-0 territory; the single point is only because hosting location is unstated rather than confirmed US. 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
Neither captured page says a word about import, export, or API access — no CSV tooling, no migration path, nothing. Missing evidence is information here: I assume lock-in until a vendor proves otherwise. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The entire registry — homepage and pricing page — is silent on import, export, migration and API access, so exit capability is unproven in either direction. Undocumented exit means undemonstrable data return and erasure under Articles 15–20; I score the absence itself rather than extend benefit of the doubt. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Both captured pages are completely silent on import, export and API — not even CSV mapping is evidenced, and guided onboarding is a service, not migration tooling. With zero evidence of any exit path, the floor anchor governs. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Neither the homepage nor the pricing page says a single word about import or export; the closest artifact is 'guided onboarding', which is vendor-led setup, not self-serve migration or exit tooling. When a sheet this size is entirely silent on getting data out, I score that as lock-in. 1 2
The Migrator
The entire registry — homepage and pricing page — says nothing about import, export, migration tooling, or API extraction. Nothing evidences a self-serve exit path of any fidelity; when a vendor's own marketing never mentions leaving, I assume leaving is a project. 1 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
This is the honest part: all three tiers carry real per-seat numbers on one page — $29/$49/$99 user/month, annual, USD — with a 14-day no-card trial. But only annual pricing is shown; no monthly rate, VAT treatment, seat minimums, or limits are stated, and sandboxes/quotes hide in the $99 tier. 2
The Data Protection Officer
All three tiers carry public per-user prices in USD billed annually ($29/$49/$99) plus a credit-card-free 14-day trial, which is better than most. But monthly-billing rates and VAT treatment are unstated, and 'Guided Onboarding and Premier Support' appears with no price attached — an unpriced add-on shape that caps this at rubric level 5. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
All three tiers carry public per-seat USD prices with annual billing stated, so a 40-seat invoice is computable — that clears rubric level 5. But there is no monthly/annual split, no VAT treatment, no seat minimums or limits, and Premier Support and onboarding are priced nowhere, which keeps it well short of 8. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Three CRM tiers carry real public numbers with currency and billing period stated, which is genuinely usable — but it's annual-only with no monthly split, no seat minimums or overage rules, and the homepage's marketing automation, ticketing, and AppConnect have no public pricing anywhere. The CRM line item is computable; the full revenue-stack invoice is not. 1 2
The Migrator
All three tiers carry real per-user numbers with the annual billing period stated, including Enterprise at $99/user — better than most. But there is no monthly/annual split, no VAT treatment, no seat minimums or limits, and 'guided onboarding and premier support' carries no price. 2
The Skeptic
Three tiers carry real per-user USD numbers with annual billing stated and a no-card 14-day trial — more than some vendors manage. But only the annual split is priced, VAT treatment is unstated, the AI Copilot branding carries no meter or credit disclosure, and 'Guided Onboarding' is an add-on with no fee shown; the renewal invoice isn't computable from these pages. 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 | Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | 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 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. A correspondence address in Vancouver, Canada is also given, but incorporation is unambiguously stated as Delaware, USA.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, 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.
- 21 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
- 10 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
- 9 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
- 5 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 product fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.insightly.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.insightly.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.insightly.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.insightly.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap www.insightly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap www.insightly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap www.insightly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap www.insightly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap www.insightly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.insightly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.insightly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →