CRM
Sellsy
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Sellsy SAS · go.sellsy.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
Sellsy SAS, a French CRM vendor in La Rochelle, is carried by a single criterion: pricing transparency, scored 6-7, while every other criterion tops out at 4. Persona-weighted totals range from 2.1 (RevOps Integrator) to 3.2 (Solo Seller). All three tiers — Standard €29, Evolution €49, Elite €79 per user per month excl. tax — carry a 2-user minimum and a 12-month commitment, so the bill is computable, though the RevOps Integrator notes 'Save 2 months when paying annually' doesn't reconcile with the printed arithmetic (Standard: €29 × 12 = €348). The weaknesses are structural: import, export & exit sits at 1-2 on a sheet entirely silent on import, export and API access; pipeline & forecasting is flat at 2, resting on one 'Budget forecast' checkbox; contact & data model runs 2-3 with no data model evidenced. The widest ranges are integrations and sovereignty: low scores refuse to credit an uninspectable 'marketplace of integrations' or a French address on a sheet that records 'no sovereignty attributes on record', while high scores credit the French entity and a real marketplace.
Speaks for it
- Pricing is published on all three tiers — Standard €29, Evolution €49, Elite €79 per user per month excl. tax — with the 2-user minimum and 12-month commitment stated, so the bill is computable
- Quote-to-invoice in a single click, electronic signature, online payment and budget forecast are confirmed capabilities
- A marketplace of integrations is confirmed available, with 48,000 users across 19,000 companies suggesting connections exist
- Support scales by tier — livechat answered 'within a few minutes', telephone support on Evolution, a dedicated account manager on Elite
Held against it
- Import, export & exit scored 1-2: no import, export, API access or migration tooling appears anywhere in the evidence
- Pipeline & forecasting is flat at 2, evidenced only by a 'Budget forecast' checkbox with no stages, gates or win/loss capture
- Contact & data model scored 2-3 with no data model, custom fields, dedupe or merge tooling evidenced
- The evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, subprocessor list, hosting location or deletion controls for a DPO to review
- 'Save 2 months when paying annually' doesn't reconcile with the printed arithmetic (€29 × 12 = €348), and storage caps below Elite are unstated
Best for
- You need fully published per-seat pricing and can accept a 2-user minimum and a 12-month commitment on every tier
- Your workflow is quotes-to-invoices with electronic signature and online payment rather than disciplined pipeline management
- You want a French SAS vendor (Sellsy SAS, La Rochelle, EU made provenance) and can obtain DPA and subprocessor details through direct procurement
Avoid if
- You need documented export, import or API access to get your data out — nothing is evidenced in either captured page
- Your forecasting depends on enforced stages, win/loss capture or reporting a finance team would sign
- You cannot proceed without a published DPA, subprocessor list or hosting location — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You are a one-seat buyer — the 2-user minimum and the 12-month commitment on every tier bite hardest at that size
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
It's filed as a CRM with 19,000 companies running on it and quotes that turn into invoices, so basic customer records must exist — but the evidence evidences nothing on custom fields, dedupe, merge, or how people, companies and deals relate. I'm crediting the floor of what 'CRM' implies and not a point more. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The record model is essentially unevidenced: the evidence shows customer-adjacent artefacts (quotes-to-invoices, 'unlimited customer document storage') but nothing on contact/company/deal objects, custom fields, validation, or deduplication. A database of third-party personal data whose data model is undocumented is a liability I cannot score above 'barely structured'. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The evidence evidences no data model at all — no custom fields, no required fields, no dedupe or merge tooling, nothing beyond a user count and invoicing blurbs. I can't confirm the standard three objects even behave relationally, so this sits below the anchor where customization is cosmetic. 1
The RevOps Integrator
A quote-to-invoice flow implies contacts and companies exist, but the registry says nothing about custom fields, required fields, dedupe, or any relationship model beyond that. I score what's evidenced, and that's a CRM-shaped outline, not a data model. 1
The Migrator
The evidence never describes the data model at all — no contacts/companies/deals structure, no field types, no dedupe, no merge, nothing. I'll grant a point or two past zero only because a CRM running 48,000 users with quote-to-invoice flows must have records and relations between them, but hygiene and customization are pure blank spots, and blanks are how duplicates eat you alive during a move-in. 1
The Skeptic
The registry is completely silent on the data model — no contacts, companies, deals, custom fields, dedupe or merge tooling are evidenced anywhere; 'quotes into invoices' implies linked records exist but says nothing about their depth or hygiene. A capability the evidence doesn't evidence is a capability I can't credit, and this sheet evidences almost nothing here. 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
The only pipeline-adjacent fact is a bare 'budget forecast' checkbox — no stages, no required fields, no win/loss capture, no reporting, nothing enforced. That's a promise of a number, not a process I could run my deals through. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A single bullet labelled 'Budget forecast' is all that exists; no evidence of pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture or any reporting a finance function would accept. Silence here means no enforceable process can be credited. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
"Budget forecast" appears as one checkbox with zero evidence of pipelines, stage gates, required fields, win/loss capture, quota or attainment tracking. My forecast discipline cannot live on a homepage bullet; this is below even the multiple-pipelines anchor. 1
The RevOps Integrator
'Budget forecast' is the only pipeline-adjacent fact confirmed — no stages, no required fields per stage, no win/loss capture, no report builder, no quota or commit views. A forecast with no enforced process behind it is a spreadsheet with a title. 1
The Migrator
'Budget forecast' exists as a claimed capability and that is the entire pipeline story: no pipelines, no stage gates, no required fields, no forecasting detail a finance team could sign. Silence on win/loss capture and reporting means I have to assume the low end. 1
The Skeptic
One checkbox — 'Budget forecast' — is the entirety of the pipeline evidence: no multiple pipelines, stage gates, win/loss capture or report builder appear anywhere in either capture. A feature flag is the nicest thing a vendor will ever say; it is not forecasting a finance department can sign. 1
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
'Marketing automation' is claimed available and that is the entire story — no workflows, sequences, triggers, branching or tier caps appear anywhere in the evidence. A label earns the 'exists' anchor; nothing above it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
'Marketing automation' appears as a bare label with no evidence of triggers, branching, routing or sequence limits — and automation that processes personal data without documented controls is exactly what I cannot vouch for. It clears 'no automation' but nothing more. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
"Marketing automation" is claimed but nothing evidences triggers, multi-step sequences, branching or lead routing. A single unelaborated capability claim earns almost nothing on this scale. 1
The RevOps Integrator
'Marketing automation' appears as a bare checkbox with no evidence of multi-step workflows, branching, lead routing, sequence analytics, or webhooks as steps. Nothing here shows automation that moves data between systems, which is the only kind I count. 1
The Migrator
'Marketing automation' is a single unchecked-marketing bullet with zero evidence of triggers, branching, sequences or limits — that is a claim, not a capability record. It sits at the bare-minimum anchor; anything about workflow depth, caps or error handling is undocumented. 1
The Skeptic
'Marketing automation' is confirmed to exist and nothing more — no sequences, branching, lead routing, workflow builder or limit counts appear anywhere in the evidence. That buys existence at the simple-trigger anchor and not one point of depth beyond it. 1
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
A public marketplace of integrations is real and beats a Zapier-only story, but there's zero evidence of two-way email or calendar sync, webhooks, or a documented API. Half the question of whether my inbox and calendar actually connect is unanswered. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A 'marketplace of integrations' is claimed but there is no evidenced API, no two-way email/calendar sync, no webhooks. Every integration is a data-flow to a third party, and with no documented API or connector scope I cannot assume any depth beyond a modest directory. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
An integrations marketplace is claimed, which implies some native directory, but the evidence says nothing about two-way email/calendar sync, an API, webhooks or OAuth. External systems are not evidenced as first-class citizens, so this caps below the anchor requiring documented sync and API. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The whole integration story is a tagline — a 'marketplace of integrations' and 'connect Sellsy to your favorite applications' — with no named apps, no REST API, no webhooks, no OAuth, and no two-way email or calendar sync documented. A marketplace I can't inspect is a claim, not a capability; I cannot wire this into a revenue stack on faith, and I won't credit closed-vendor promises as ecosystem depth. 1
The Migrator
A 'marketplace of integrations' is claimed, which implies a modest native directory, but there is no API documentation, no email/calendar sync, no webhooks, no OAuth apps on record. For someone who needs API parity to pull their own data, an unspecified marketplace with no API evidence is barely past nothing. 1
The Skeptic
A 'marketplace of integrations' is claimed, but the evidence is dead silent on any API, two-way email/calendar sync, webhooks or OAuth — a marketplace sign is a shopfront, not a documented surface. 48,000 users suggests connections exist; the evidence doesn't show a single one, let alone API parity. 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 French SAS in La Rochelle processing under French law is a genuinely good start, but the record shows no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting location and no deletion or retention controls. The entity is European; the paperwork a DPO would ask for is nowhere in evidence. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The one solid fact is the vendor itself: Sellsy SAS, La Rochelle, France — an EU entity is genuinely better than a US default. But the evidence records no sovereignty attributes at all: no EU hosting commitment, no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no retention or deletion controls on either captured page, so I can certify nothing about where contacts' data lives or under whose law. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The vendor is a French SAS (La Rochelle) pricing in EUR excl. tax, which rules out the US-entity anchor, but the registry records no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting or retention/deletion facts. A DPO would have nothing to review, so it cannot reach the published-subprocessor anchor. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
The vendor is a French SAS (La Rochelle, France) per provenance tied to its own homepage, so it's not a US-jurisdiction default — but the evidence explicitly records no sovereignty attributes: no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting location, no retention or deletion controls. An EU address alone gives a DPO nothing to sign. 1
The Migrator
Sellsy SAS in La Rochelle is a genuine French entity, which is worth something — but the evidence itself says 'no sovereignty attributes on record': no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting details anywhere in the registry. An EU entity with undocumented subprocessors is exactly the setup where a US cloud processor sneaks in and a DPO files an exception. 1
The Skeptic
A French SAS in La Rochelle with EU made provenance is a genuinely good start, but the evidence itself records 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting disclosure, no deletion controls. The entity is European; everything a DPO actually needs to sign off is unevidenced. 1
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 evidence is completely silent on import, export, API access and exit — not one fact, and silence on the anti-lock-in criterion is itself information. The only portable artifacts I can point to are the quote and invoice documents themselves. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Both captures are entirely silent on import, export, migration tooling and API access — the anti-lock-in criterion has zero evidence behind it. As a DPO, a controller who cannot show me an exit path for the personal data they hold gets close to the floor. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The registry is entirely silent on import, export, API access or migration tooling — and for this criterion silence is a red flag, not a neutral. Nothing evidences you can get your history out of this system at all. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The registry is silent end to end on import, export, API extraction, or migration tooling — no exit path of any kind is evidenced. Elite's 'unlimited customer document storage' makes it worse: documents pile up in a system with no documented way out, and silence on exit is itself information. 2
The Migrator
This is the criterion I live for and the evidence is completely silent: no import tooling, no export format, no migration path, no API rate limits, no contractual data-return terms — nothing. Worse, Elite advertises 'unlimited customer document storage', so documents pile up with no evidenced way out; undocumented exit is how a migration becomes a quarter-long 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
All three tiers carry real numbers with VAT treatment, annual split and the 12-month commitment stated, so I can compute a floor invoice (2 users × €29 = €696/year + VAT) in two minutes. But the 2-user minimum and universal 12-month lock-in sting hard for a 1-seat buyer like me, storage caps below Elite are unquantified, and I can't tell from this sheet which tier actually gets marketing automation or the budget forecast. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Credit where due: all three tiers are publicly priced per user with monthly/annual split, VAT treatment stated (excl. tax), 12-month commitment and the 2-user minimum disclosed — the invoice is largely computable. It falls short of full computability because the feature-to-tier mapping is sparse (storage limits below Elite, where budget forecast and marketing automation land) so a buyer cannot fully price capability, only seats. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Three tiers priced publicly per user with monthly/annual split, VAT treatment (excl. tax), a stated 2-user minimum and 12-month commitment — the 40-seat invoice is a two-minute exercise. Held below the top anchors because tier limits (storage below Elite is unstated) and add-on or overage rules are not enumerated. 2
The RevOps Integrator
All three tiers carry real public numbers with excl-tax treatment, per-user monthly and annual figures, a 2-user minimum and a 12-month commitment — genuinely computable, which is rarer than it should be. The deduction: 'Save 2 months when paying annually' doesn't reconcile with the printed arithmetic (€29 × 12 = €348, no visible discount), and which features sit in which tier is only partially itemized. 2
The Migrator
Credit where due: all three tiers carry real numbers with monthly/annual split, excl-tax VAT treatment, a stated 2-user minimum and the 12-month commitment spelled out. It falls short of full computability because only Elite's 'unlimited' storage is quantified — the caps on Standard and Evolution, and any metered boundaries, are unstated, and there is no rolling monthly option at all. 2
The Skeptic
Credit where due: three tiers with real per-seat numbers, VAT treatment, annual/monthly split, a stated 2-user minimum and 'save 2 months' quantified — the invoice is computable in two minutes. But note the trap: the '/month' price carries a 12-month commitment on every single tier, and the feature matrix is visible only in fragments, so you can compute the bill but not fully what's in it. 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 ⚠ 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 16 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors, 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.
- 21 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 12 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
- 6 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
- 4 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 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
- 3 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 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
- 3 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
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage go.sellsy.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page go.sellsy.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice go.sellsy.com Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy go.sellsy.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Contact & data model — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap go.sellsy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →