CRM
Salesflare
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Salesflare BV · salesflare.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
Salesflare is a CRM for SMBs selling B2B, from Salesflare BV of Antwerp, Belgium. The bench's scores run strongest on pricing transparency and automation, where scores cluster at 4, and weakest on data portability and sales pipeline. Per-user prices are published at €29/€49/€99 with a monthly/annual toggle, a 5-user Enterprise minimum, a 30-day trial with no credit card required, and cancellation that stops charges immediately; judges docked pricing for lead credits (5/100/250 by tier) with no published overage price and unstated VAT. Automated email sequences and semi-automatic CRM data input anchor the automation cluster, though multiple email workflows sit behind Pro. Sovereignty spans 2–4: some judges credit the Belgian entity and EUR pricing, while others weigh the evidence's 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, subprocessor list or hosting location. Contact management spans 2–4 on an implied people/companies graph with custom fields and merge tooling unevidenced. Data portability scores 1–2 because the only migration path is 'data migration done for you' on the €99 Enterprise tier, with no export, API or webhook in evidence.
Speaks for it
- Published per-user prices of €29/€49/€99 with a monthly/annual toggle and a stated 5-user Enterprise minimum
- A 30-day free trial with no credit card required
- Cancellation stops charges immediately and requires no multi-year contract
- Automation scores cluster at 4 on real email sequences, automated reminders and semi-automatic CRM data input
- Salesflare BV in Antwerp with EUR pricing provides an EU vendor entity
Held against it
- The only migration path is 'data migration done for you' on the Enterprise tier, with no export, API or webhook in evidence
- Pipeline evidence is a drag-and-drop board plus Pro-gated custom dashboards, with no stage gates, forecasting or quotas
- Lead credits (5/100/250 by tier) carry no published overage price and VAT treatment is unstated
- The evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, subprocessor list or hosting location
- No API, webhook, Zapier or marketplace is evidenced; Google/Microsoft email sync and a LinkedIn sidebar are the whole directory
Best for
- You're a solo or small-team B2B seller whose pipeline runs through Google or Microsoft email and LinkedIn
- You want a per-seat invoice you can compute at small seat counts, with a 30-day trial and no credit card required
- You sell across Europe and value EUR pricing and a product offered in seven languages
- An EU vendor entity (Salesflare BV, Antwerp) matters more to you than a published compliance file
Avoid if
- You need to export your database, script against an API, or migrate yourself — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your finance team needs stage gates, forecasting, win/loss capture or quota tracking before signing off on a pipeline
- You must produce a DPA, subprocessor list or hosting location — the evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record', and enrichment, lead finder and business email finder process third parties' personal data by design
- You run metered prospecting and must budget ahead — lead-credit refill/overage pricing is published nowhere
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 CRM that fills itself — enrichment, AI suggestions, semi-automatic data input — is exactly the default hygiene a one-person shop needs, and relationship intelligence implies people/companies are linked. But the evidence says nothing about custom fields, required fields, merge or dedupe tooling, so this stops just above the cosmetic anchor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Semi-automatic data input and tracked email/web/LinkedIn activity imply a living activity history on the record, but the evidence is silent on custom fields, validation, required fields and merge/dedupe tooling — the only 'duplicates' mention is lead-finder marketing copy. Worse, the record model is fed by enrichment, a lead finder and a business email finder, i.e. profiles assembled from the open web without evidenced consent or provenance fields. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Standard objects exist implicitly (B2B positioning, pipelines) with activity history via tracking and enrichment, but the evidence says nothing about custom fields, required fields, or merge/dedupe tooling — the lead finder line about avoiding 'mistakes and duplicates' is marketing copy, not hygiene tooling. Without required fields and dedupe evidence I can't run clean data through a 40-seat process. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Relationship intelligence, enrichment and semi-automatic data input suggest a real people/companies graph rather than a flat address book, and Pro-tier user permissions exist — but the evidence is silent on custom fields, dedupe/merge tooling and field-level history, so customization depth earns no credit. 1 2
The Migrator
The evidence gives me marketing-level nouns only — semi-automatic data input, enrichment, a 'who knows whom' graph — with zero evidence of custom fields, merge or dedupe tooling, or field-level anything; the one duplicate claim is lead-finder copy, not hygiene tooling. The Pro tier's 'user permissions' is the only structural hint, and it's not field-level access. Standard objects are implied but the data model's depth is entirely unevidenced, so it sits below the anchor where customization at least exists. 1 2
The Skeptic
The record offers marketing shells — pipelines, enrichment, a lead finder pitched as avoiding 'mistakes and duplicates' — but not one fact about field types, required fields, merge tooling or custom objects. Relationship intelligence implies people relate to people, yet nothing evidences a data model beyond the standard CRM trio; silence on hygiene is itself a hygiene answer. 1
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
A drag-and-drop visual pipeline and custom dashboards (gated to Pro) are the entire evidenced story — no stage gates, win/loss capture, probabilities, forecasts or quotas anywhere in the evidence. That's a kanban, a notch above anchor zero and well short of a process. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence shows a single drag-and-drop visual pipeline — kanban-style, nothing enforced — plus 'custom dashboards' locked behind the Pro tier. Multiple pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecasts and quota tracking are all absent from the record, so I score below the three anchor. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The only pipeline evidence is a visual drag-and-drop board plus custom dashboards behind the Pro tier — no stage probabilities, no required fields per stage, no win/loss capture, no forecast, no quota tracking anywhere on the evidence. That's a kanban with amounts; a CFO will not sign a forecast built on this. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
The record shows a drag-and-drop visual pipeline with automated follow-up reminders and custom dashboards gated to Pro; no evidence of stage gates, required fields, probabilities, forecasting or quota tracking. Nothing here a finance team could book against. 1 2
The Migrator
What's evidenced is a drag-and-drop kanban plus 'custom dashboards' on Pro — no stage requirements, no win/loss capture, no forecast, quota or roll-up in sight. That's anchor-0 mechanics with one reporting crumb. No finance department I've worked with signs off on a forecast built from this sheet. 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
Automated email sequences that 'follow up flawlessly', automated reminders, and the CRM inputting its own data covers most of what a solo pipeline actually needs. But multi-email workflows sit behind the Pro tier, and there's no branching, lead routing, webhooks or workflow builder across objects in evidence — email automation, not infrastructure. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Automated email sequences with timed follow-up and 'multiple email workflows' are real, but workflows are explicitly tier-capped — Growth gets sequences, Pro unlocks multiple workflows — which is the anchor's 'capped by tier' failure mode. No webhooks, no routing logic, no error handling anywhere in the evidence. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Real multi-step email sequences exist ('workflows of multiple emails' at Pro) plus automated reminders and semi-automatic data input, which clears the simple-trigger floor. But there's no evidence of branching, record-level workflow builders, lead routing, or webhooks — automation here is sequences and auto-fill, not process enforcement. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Multi-step email workflows and automated CRM data input are real and tier-gated ('Multiple email workflows' is the Pro pitch), which is sequence-grade automation — but no branching across objects, no webhook steps, no lead routing on record. 1 2
The Migrator
Multi-step automated email sequences and Pro's 'workflows of multiple emails' are real, tier-gated automation, plus automated data input and reminders. But there's no evidence of branching, lead routing, workflow triggers across objects, or webhooks — this is email follow-up automation, not a workflow builder. 1 2
The Skeptic
Automated email sequences, automated reminders and a CRM that fills itself from your inbox are real and clear the if-this-then-that floor. But sequences are the ceiling: no branching, no routing, no webhooks in evidence — and note the lead-credit meter sitting beside every meterable feature, 5 on Growth up to 250 on Enterprise, with overage pricing published nowhere. 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
Google/Microsoft signup plus 'seamless' LinkedIn and email-inbox sync with automatic tracking is the right core for a solo seller. But the evidence is entirely silent on an API, webhooks, or a native integration directory, and that silence is information — I can't score an ecosystem that isn't evidenced. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Deep inbox sync with Google and Microsoft providers plus a LinkedIn integration are evidenced by name only — depth and direction unproven — and there is no API, webhook, Zapier or marketplace in the record at all. A knowledge center section titled 'Apps & Integrations' is a table of contents, not a documented API. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Email sync with Google and Microsoft, a LinkedIn sidebar, and an integrations section in the knowledge center are all that's on record — the evidence is completely silent on any API, webhooks, or marketplace. Two major email providers plus LinkedIn is not a revenue stack; a CRM that cannot document an API can't be the system of record. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
The only connection story on record is Google/Microsoft email sync plus a LinkedIn sidebar — no public API, no webhooks, no integration directory beyond a knowledge-center tutorial link. In my book an unevidenced API is a missing API, and a CRM without webhooks is not a system of record in a stack. 1 2
The Migrator
Email integration with Google/Microsoft, LinkedIn sync, and a knowledge-center 'Apps & Integrations' section put this past pure CSV land. But the evidence contains no mention of an API at all — no REST docs, no webhooks, no Zapier — and for a CRM in 2026 an unevidenced API is an API I assume I can't use to get my data out. Capped at the read-mostly anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
Google/Microsoft email and an unaffiliated LinkedIn sidebar, plus a knowledge-center page gesturing at 'Apps & Integrations' — that's the whole directory. No API documentation, no webhooks, no Zapier, no marketplace anywhere in the registry, so email sync alone can't clear an anchor that demands a documented REST API. 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
Salesflare BV in Antwerp with EUR pricing and seven European languages gives me a European entity, which is where this criterion starts. But the evidence records no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting location — 'no sovereignty attributes on record' means I cannot verify where my contacts' data actually sits or under whose law. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A Belgian BV is the single fact in this product's favour, and then the record goes dark: no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting location, no retention or deletion controls — everything a DPO must be able to sign is absent, which scores below the anchor that at least presumes a DPA exists. Meanwhile enrichment, lead finder and business email finder process third parties' personal data by design, and Google/Microsoft sign-up guarantees core processing touches US-headquartered providers. I cannot sign this off on any tier. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Salesflare BV in Antwerp with EUR pricing gives a genuine EU entity, which is the fact that matters most here. But the evidence records no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting region and no deletion controls — 'no sovereignty attributes on record' means my DPO would be signing off an empty file. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
A Belgian entity charging in EUR across seven European languages is the extent of the evidence — 'no sovereignty attributes on record' means no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting location, no deletion controls. EU vendor, undocumented everything else. 2
The Migrator
Salesflare BV in Antwerp is an EU entity and prices in EUR, which clears the US-entity anchor — but the sovereignty attributes section literally reads 'no sovereignty attributes on record': no DPA, no hosting location, no subprocessor list anywhere in the evidence. I can't tell a DPO where the data lives or who touches it, so a Belgian invoice alone doesn't carry this past the middle. 1 2
The Skeptic
A Belgian BV and euro-denominated invoices are where the sovereignty story starts and ends: the evidence itself says 'no sovereignty attributes on record', with no DPA, no subprocessor list and no hosting disclosure in the evidence. Undocumented subprocessor chains are presumed broad until published — the entity is real, the compliance paper trail is invisible. 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
The only inbound evidence is 'data migration done for you' as an Enterprise feature — import as a hand-holding service on the top tier, exactly the support-ticket pattern anchor zero describes. Export of any kind is completely unevidenced, so there is no exit story at all. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only migration fact in the record is 'Data migration done for you' — a human service reserved for the €99 Enterprise tier — and there is no evidence of self-serve import or any export capability whatsoever. Silence on how a customer's data leaves is the loudest lock-in signal a the evidence can give. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Data migration exists only as a done-for-you service on the top tier, which is import-as-a-support-ticket, and there is zero evidence of self-serve export of any object. Cancellation stops charges immediately, which is kind to billing but says nothing about getting my database out. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Contractual exit is genuinely clean — cancel anytime, charges stop immediately, no multi-year lock-in — but the only migration path on record is 'data migration done for you' as an Enterprise perk. No self-serve import, no export, no API to pull the database out. 2
The Migrator
The only migration evidence is 'Data migration done for you' on the top tier — vendor-mediated ingress as a service, nothing self-serve, and no export, API or data-return terms evidenced at all. The lone positive is genuinely good exit-friendly contracting (cancel anytime, charges stop immediately, no multi-year lock), but leaving a CRM means leaving with the data, and this sheet gives me no path to it. 2
The Skeptic
The only inbound path in the record is 'data migration done for you' — a concierge line item on the €99/user Enterprise tier — and there is no export capability evidenced at all, not even a contacts CSV, nor an API to script your own exit. Exit here isn't priced out; it's simply undocumented, which is lock-in with better manners. 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
€29/€49/€99 per user with a monthly/annual toggle, the 5-user minimum printed right on the Enterprise tier, a 30-day trial without a card, and 'cancel whenever you want and you'll stop being charged immediately' — that's an invoice I can compute at 1 seat in a minute. Docked because lead credits (5/100/250) are a meter with no published overage price, and the 'save €X' phrasing makes you reverse-engineer the monthly rate. 2
The Data Protection Officer
All three tiers carry real euro figures with the monthly/annual split, a stated 5-user minimum on Enterprise, no-commitment cancellation and a card-free 30-day trial — genuinely computable at small seat counts. But lead credits are a usage meter (5/100/250 per tier) with no published refill price, VAT treatment is unstated, and a 'dedicated account manager' tier signals custom contracts. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
All three tiers carry public per-seat EUR prices with a monthly/annual toggle, stated feature lists, a 5-user minimum on Enterprise, and no-lock cancellation terms. It stops short of rubric level 8 because lead credits (5/100/250) are a usage meter with no published refill price and VAT treatment is unstated — I cannot compute the invoice a heavy prospecting team would actually pay. 2
The RevOps Integrator
All three tiers carry public per-user prices with a monthly/annual toggle, a stated 5-user minimum on Enterprise and free trial terms — the invoice at small seat counts is computable. Docked for the annual-savings framing that obscures the true monthly rate, unstated VAT treatment, and lead-credit overage rules that are never priced. 2
The Migrator
Every tier carries a real per-user price with the annual discount and a stated 5-user minimum on Enterprise, plus a free 30-day trial and public cancellation terms, stable across three captures of the pricing page. Missing the last mile: lead-credit overage pricing and VAT treatment are unstated, which keeps it off the 8 anchor. 2 2 2
The Skeptic
Real per-seat numbers on every tier (€29/€49/€99), a monthly/annual toggle, stated savings, a disclosed 5-user Enterprise minimum and a card-free trial — better than most. But the lead-credit meter (5/100/250 by tier) is priced nowhere, VAT treatment is unstated, and whether €29 is the monthly or annual rate requires decoding the '(save €10)' footnote: the seat math is public, the meter math is not. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited 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 21 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 36 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
- 19 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
- 8 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
- 6 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
- 4 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 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 21 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Terms of service salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & API — found from sitemap salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & API — found from sitemap salesflare.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →