CRM
Keap
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 Keap (Thryv Holdings) · keap.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
Keap, a CRM owned by Thryv Holdings (acquired 2024) and serving small businesses since 2001 (200,000+ customers, per the vendor homepage), was judged from two captured vendor pages, and the record is thin. Its strongest criterion is integrations, scoring 3-4 on the claimed "over 5,000 integrations" — though judges note the number has no documented API, webhooks, or named sync behind it. Pricing transparency sits at 3 across the table: a public starting price of $299/mo billed monthly, offset by required implementation services with no published price and no seat counts, tier limits, VAT treatment, or renewal terms. Weakest are sovereignty (0-1: Grapevine, TX address, US parent, no sovereignty attributes on record), import, export & exit (0-2: nothing on export; data-in runs through required services), and the unevidenced pipeline & forecasting and automation. Judges genuinely diverge on how to score that silence — some at the floor, the Skeptic at the top of each range — a difference of stance toward unevidenced capability rather than fact, and the flagged splits report none above threshold.
Speaks for it
- Claims over 5,000 integrations, the bench's highest-scoring criterion
- Publishes a starting price of $299/mo billed monthly, holding pricing transparency at 3
- Operates since 2001 with 200,000+ small-business customers (vendor-claimed)
- Offers free 24/7 support and a published phone line
Held against it
- sovereignty scores 0-1 with no sovereignty attributes on record, a Grapevine, TX legal address, and US parent Thryv
- Pipeline & forecasting and automation score 0-2 with neither captured page mentioning pipelines, stages, workflows, or sequences
- Import, export & exit scores 0-2 with no import or export evidenced and implementation services required
- Implementation services are mandatory with no published price, and no seat counts, tier limits, VAT treatment, or renewal terms appear
- The integration claim is a directory count with no documented API, webhooks, or named two-way sync behind it
Best for
- You run a small US-based business and want a long-established CRM (since 2001, 200,000+ customers) with a large claimed integration directory
- You accept vendor-mediated onboarding in exchange for a public starting price and free 24/7 support
- You buy primarily on integration breadth, the bench's highest-scoring criterion
Avoid if
- You need evidenced pipeline management, forecasting, or workflow automation — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You are a European buyer requiring a DPA, subprocessor list, or EU hosting — the evidence records none
- You must compute your full first invoice upfront — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need self-serve import/export or a documented exit path — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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
Not one fact on contacts, companies, fields, or dedupe — all I can confirm is that this is a CRM with 200,000+ customers since 2001. In my world no evidence means no credit, so I can't assume anything beyond bare contact records. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence evidences nothing about the record model — no custom fields, no dedupe, no relationships, and notably no consent or lawful-basis fields, which for a database of other people's personal data is the first thing I look for. A CRM must hold contacts, but beyond that bare fact this is pure absence. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Not one fact in this sheet touches fields, objects, dedupe, merge or record hygiene — for a CRM I'd inherit, that silence is disqualifying. I take 'Category: CRM' as baseline proof contacts exist, but nothing evidences required fields, validation or relationships between people, companies and deals, so this sits just above a flat address book. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The evidence evidences nothing about Keap's data model — no companies, no deal objects, no custom fields, no dedupe — only that it's a small-business CRM that has existed since 2001. Per the anchors, silence puts this at the floor; I can't credit field types or merge tooling I can't see. 1
The Migrator
The evidence is silent on the data model — no objects, no custom fields, no dedupe, no activity history. Unevidenced is nonexistent per my rules, and 200,000 customers tells me nothing about whether contacts even relate to deals. Floor score. 1 2
The Skeptic
The registry documents not one field type, object relationship, or dedupe feature — a '200,000+ small businesses' claim with an empty data-model story behind it. Silence is information: nothing here lifts Keap above 'standard objects, cosmetic customization' territory, and I score the silence. 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 evidence is silent on stages, required fields, forecasts — nothing enforced, nothing evidenced. When the only confirmed setup path is mandatory paid implementation services, silence about what the pipeline actually does gets the bottom of the range from me. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
No pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecasting or quota tracking appear anywhere in the evidence. As far as this sheet goes, deal management does not exist as an evidenced capability. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
The evidence never mentions pipelines, stages, required fields, forecasting or quota tracking — the vendor's own highlighted facts are integrations, support and price, omitting the process enforcement my forecast depends on. With no evidenced stage gates or finance-grade reporting, this scores near the bottom: a kanban of amounts would be an improvement over what's documented. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Neither captured page mentions deals, stages, stage requirements, forecasts or reporting — a pricing page for a CRM that never says the word pipeline is its own evidence. No pipeline capability is evidenced at all, so this sits at the 0 anchor. 1 2
The Migrator
Not one word on pipelines, stages, required fields, forecasting or reporting — a kanban of deals with amounts is the most I could even hypothesize, and I can't credit what isn't in evidence. Both captured pages say nothing about it. 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
Zero facts about triggers, sequences, or a workflow builder anywhere in the registry. Whatever Keap's reputation, the evidence doesn't say it, so it doesn't exist — and I buy CRMs to kill manual work, so this stings. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No triggers, sequences, branching or lead routing are evidenced — not even a marketing claim, which is telling given the vendor's own homepage sells integrations and support instead. Silence of this depth scores as absence. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
No triggers, sequences, branching or lead routing appear anywhere in the registry; the only 'sync' language concerns integrations, not workflows. I can't credit automation the vendor didn't evidence, so this scores at absence. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The only product claim the vendor substantiates here is an integration count; workflows, sequences, branching and lead routing are entirely unevidenced on both pages. Absence scores at the bottom anchor. 1 2
The Migrator
No triggers, sequences, routing or workflow evidence anywhere in the evidence; free 24/7 support is humans, not automation. Scored at the floor because the feature is entirely unevidenced. 1 2
The Skeptic
The evidence is entirely silent on triggers, sequences and workflows, and the only workflow-adjacent fact is that implementation services are 'required' — automation you pay the vendor's consultants to configure. No self-serve automation evidence at all keeps this at the bottom of the scale. 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
'Over 5,000 integrations' is real breadth on paper, but there's no evidence of two-way email/calendar sync, a documented API, or webhooks. A big directory alone is half the story, not parity with the UI. 1
The Data Protection Officer
'Over 5,000 integrations' is breadth claimed with zero depth documented: no API, no webhooks, no two-way email/calendar sync evidence. From where I sit, five thousand undocumented pipes carrying contact data is a subprocessor exposure I cannot audit — generous on the number, absent on everything the anchors demand. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
'Over 5,000 integrations' with language about syncing the app to the tech stack is real breadth, well past 'a handful of Zapier triggers.' But nothing evidences two-way email and calendar sync, a documented REST API, or webhooks, so it stops short of the standard anchor — 4 is the honest split. 1
The RevOps Integrator
'Over 5,000 integrations' is a directory count, not a capability: no documented REST API, no webhooks, no named two-way email or calendar sync, no evidence of native connections to the tools money flows through. In my stack, a big number without an API behind it doesn't clear the Zapier-and-BCC ceiling. 1
The Migrator
'Over 5,000 integrations' is a homepage marketing count with zero documented API, no webhook evidence, and no stated email/calendar sync. Above rubric level 3 because the claimed directory is large, below 5 because a number is not documentation — I've exited vendors whose '5,000 integrations' were mostly a Zapier wrapper. 1
The Skeptic
One number — 'over 5,000 integrations' — with no API documentation, webhook, OAuth app, or sync evidence in the registry to say how many are native versus Zapier-adjacent. A homepage count is the nicest thing a vendor will ever say about itself; without sync-reliability or API-parity evidence it buys a middling score and not a point more. 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
Texas address, US entity, US phone number, and the sovereignty attribute list is completely empty — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU region on record anywhere. That is the anchor-zero case exactly, and my EU contacts' data deserves better than undocumented. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Grapevine, Texas legal address, a US phone line, US parent Thryv, and no sovereignty attributes on record — no EU hosting, no DPA, no subprocessor list in evidence. This is the exact anchor-zero posture; I would not sign a DPA against it. 2 1
The Sales Ops Lead
US entity in Grapevine, TX, a US-only footprint in the evidence, and the attributes section records no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU region. That is the 0 anchor verbatim — I'd tell any European prospect their data lives under Texas law as far as this record shows. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
Grapevine, Texas address, a US parent in Thryv, and 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU region even on request. Textbook rubric level 0 for European buyers. 1 2
The Migrator
A Grapevine, Texas entity, 'no sovereignty attributes on record', no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU hosting option anywhere. That is the anchor-zero description verbatim. 2
The Skeptic
A Grapevine, TX legal address, a +1 support line, and 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU hosting option anywhere on the evidence. That is anchor-0 almost verbatim, softened by one point only because total absence is not the same as a published bad answer. 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
Total silence on import, export, and API access — and the one setup fact I have is 'required implementation services,' meaning even getting data IN runs through the vendor's desk. Nothing here suggests I could get my database back out on my own, which is a dealbreaker. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing on export anywhere — no CSV scope, no API mention — and the one data-movement fact in evidence is that implementation services are required, meaning data-in is a vendor-mediated engagement. Getting in through the vendor's hands with no evidenced way out is lock-in, not portability. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The evidence is completely silent on import and export — no migration tooling, no API access, no export formats evidenced. The only adjacent fact is that implementation services are required, which implies onboarding runs through vendor services rather than self-serve tooling; nothing here lets a buyer compute an exit. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
No import or export capability is evidenced anywhere in the evidence, and the pricing page makes implementation services mandatory — getting data in reads like a paid engagement, not a self-serve path. Silence plus required onboarding lands this at the floor. 2
The Migrator
Nothing on import, export, API access or exit terms — and 'Required implementation services' tells me getting data in is a paid engagement while the evidence is dead silent on getting it out. Export behind a services conversation is exactly the trap I score at zero. 2
The Skeptic
Nothing in the registry evidences import, export, or API-based exit, and onboarding is explicitly 'required implementation services' — you pay the vendor to get in, and the evidence says nothing about getting out. Getting in is a service and getting out is unaddressed: that is the lock-in profile I exist to flag. 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
There is a public number — $299/mo — but 'required implementation services' with no published price makes my actual first invoice unknowable, and there's no tier table, seat math, or billing split shown. That's the mandatory-onboarding trap rubric level 3 names, and it's exactly what I refuse to pay for. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A real public starting number exists — $299/mo billed monthly — but required implementation services with no stated price means no buyer can compute the actual first invoice from public pages. That mandatory-onboarding trap is precisely what rubric level 3 describes. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
One number — $299/mo billed monthly — with mandatory implementation services attached and no seat basis, tier table, VAT treatment or renewal terms anywhere in the evidence. I cannot compute a 40-seat invoice from this page, which is the anchor's exact failure mode. 2
The RevOps Integrator
$299/mo billed monthly is public, which is one rung above nothing, but required implementation services are mandatory onboarding fees and nothing states seat counts, tier limits, VAT treatment or renewal terms. That is the anchor-3 pattern almost verbatim. 2
The Migrator
One number exists — starting at $299/mo billed monthly — but everything above the entry tier is unpriced and implementation services are mandatory, which is the exact entry-price-plus-obscured-tiers-plus-mandatory-onboarding shape rubric level 3 describes. 2
The Skeptic
'Starting at $299/mo' is the only number published, and it arrives stapled to 'required implementation services' — a mandatory, unpriced onboarding fee that is the anchor-3 definition almost word for word. No tier ladder, no seat counts, no annual/monthly split, no VAT treatment, and an acquirer (Thryv, 2024) whose renewal behaviour no public page will let you compute. 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 | Foreign-controlled ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 2 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 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 — Ownership. The page only names a Thryv acquisition; it does not state Thryv's ownership status or country, so this rests on external knowledge of Thryv being a US-listed company.
- 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.
- 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 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
- 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
- 1 legal 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 support 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
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage keap.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page keap.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Contact & data model — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Contact & data model — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & API — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap keap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →