CRM
SuperOffice CRM
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SuperOffice AS · www.superoffice.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 SuperOffice CRM, 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
Starter confirms the standard trio — manage contacts and companies, track deals and sales activities — plus SuperNotes pushing structured meeting notes into records. But the evidence says nothing about custom fields, required fields, or any dedupe or merge tooling, so I'd be my own data janitor, and that caps it at the standard-objects level. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Contacts and companies are confirmed and the built-in GDPR and consent tooling is the one thing I actually want on a contact record — but the evidence is silent on custom fields, dedupe, merge, and relations beyond the standard objects, and absence of evidence means duplicates accumulate unchecked. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The evidence confirms only that Starter users 'manage contacts and companies' and 'track deals and sales activities' — the standard objects exist, but there is zero evidence of custom fields, required fields, validation, dedupe or merge tooling. A data model the evidence can't show field-level discipline on doesn't exist as far as my forecast hygiene is concerned. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
Starter lists 'Manage contacts and companies' and 'Track deals and sales activities', so the standard three objects exist, and SuperNotes pushes structured notes onto records. But the evidence shows no custom fields, no dedupe or merge tooling, no field-level anything — that's the bottom third of the scale with activity capture as the only depth signal. 1 2
The Migrator
The evidence gives me contacts, companies, deals, service tools and a meeting-note assistant, plus hints of projects and tickets via the Slack integration — but not one word on dedupe, merge, custom fields or validation. No dedupe evidence means duplicates accumulate unchecked, which is exactly the scar I check for first. 2 1
The Skeptic
The entire data-model story is one Starter bullet — 'Manage contacts and companies; Track deals and sales activities' — which buys the standard objects and nothing more. No field types, no dedupe, no merge tooling anywhere in the evidence; a veteran CRM with no evidenced customization is either hiding it or hasn't got it worth saying. 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 entire pipeline evidence is one bullet: 'Track deals and sales activities.' No stages, no probabilities, no required fields, no forecast or reporting anywhere in the evidence — for someone whose pipeline lives in the gaps between customer calls, that's a deal list, not a process. 2
The Data Protection Officer
'Track deals and sales activities' is the entirety of the pipeline evidence; no stage gates, no required fields, no win/loss capture, no forecast a finance department would accept — this scores on absence. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
All I get is deal tracking and a Slack alert when a sale is 'marked as sold' — no stages, no probabilities, no required fields per stage, no forecast views, no quota tracking anywhere in the evidence. This is a deal board at best; nothing here rolls up to a number my CFO would sign. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
The entire pipeline evidence is one bullet: 'Track deals and sales activities'. No multiple pipelines, no stage gates, no forecast views, no report builder — as far as this sheet shows, finance inherits a deal tracker, not a process. 2
The Migrator
All the evidence evidences is 'Track deals and sales activities' and Slack celebrating when a sale is 'marked as sold' — no pipelines, stage gates, required fields, forecasts or reports anywhere. That sits between a bare deal list and the tier where probabilities exist but nothing is enforced. 2 1
The Skeptic
Deals and sales activities exist, but there is not one fact about multiple pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture or any forecast view. For a vendor pitching 'mature organisations optimising growth', the absence of a single reporting fact is the tell. 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
'Automate processes as your team grows' is a tagline on the €95 Growth tier, not evidence of a workflow builder, and the autonomous-agent talk has no triggers, sequences, or routing behind it — SuperNotes is the only concrete automated behavior shown. The word 'grows' reads like automation starting one tier above the Starter plan I'd actually buy, which is exactly the hostage pattern I reject. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
A Growth-tier tagline promising to 'automate processes' plus 'autonomous agents that handle work' is marketing, not a workflow builder — no triggers, sequences, or routing are evidenced, and agents processing other people's personal data with zero governance evidence is a red flag I'm noting for the record. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The Growth tagline 'Automate processes as your team grows' and 'autonomous agents' claims are marketing copy, not evidence of triggers, multi-step sequences, branching or routing. SuperNotes drafting follow-up email is an AI assistant, not a workflow engine — I can't credit automation the evidence never actually shows. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
Growth is literally marketed as 'Automate processes as your team grows' with 'autonomous agents that handle work' and AI in every plan, so vendor-claimed basic automation exists. But no trigger, branch, sequence limit or webhook step appears anywhere — I can't credit a workflow builder the evidence never shows. 1 2
The Migrator
'Growth — Automate processes as your team grows' is a plan tagline, not a workflow builder; AI agents and SuperNotes drafting follow-ups are the only automation-shaped evidence. No multi-step sequences, branching, routing or webhooks are evidenced, and automation being a paid-tier selling point suggests it's capped by plan. 2 1
The Skeptic
'Automate processes as your team grows' is the Growth tagline and 'autonomous agents' is homepage poetry — neither is a workflow builder, and no triggers, branching, sequences or routing are evidenced. The fact that automation is the upsell pitch for the €95 tier tells you the feature is tier-gated, not infrastructure. 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
Four named native connectors including genuine two-way-ish ERP syncs (Dynamics NAV, Visma Business transactional data) plus email, calendar, and documents in Starter — a real, if modest, directory. But not one word about an API or webhooks, so my stack integration stops wherever their directory stops. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Genuine two-way-sounding sync with Visma Business and Dynamics NAV plus Slack, Trello, and email/calendar connect gives a modest native directory, but the evidence shows no API, no webhooks, no OAuth — a CRM that is a database of other people's data with no documented API is a one-way container. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Four named native integrations — Dynamics NAV, Visma Business, Slack, Trello — plus 'connect email, calendar, and documents' in Starter show a modest native directory with real finance-system depth. But the evidence is entirely silent on any API, webhooks, or OAuth apps, so I can't treat external systems as first-class; this sits between 'read-mostly' and 'documented REST API'. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Visma Business Sync is the real thing — two-way contact sync plus live ERP transactional data — and Dynamics NAV surfaces invoice/order details in the CRM record, which satisfies my native-ERP criterion. Slack is one-way alerts and Trello is task-linking; email/calendar is only 'Connect email, calendar, and documents' with no sync direction stated; and the evidence contains zero API, webhook or marketplace evidence — an unevidenced API is no API, so this stops short of rubric level 5. 1 2
The Migrator
Real native syncs exist — Dynamics NAV, Visma Business, Slack, Trello — plus email/calendar/document connection in Starter, which is more than a Zapier stub. But the evidence is silent on any API, webhooks, OAuth apps or whether email sync is two-way, so I can't credit parity or ecosystem depth. 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
A Norwegian entity with an Oslo address and VAT number, a 'Based in Europe, GDPR-compliant' posture, a named hosting partner (Visma Software International AS), and consent tools shipping in Starter is a genuinely European start. But no published DPA, no subprocessor list, and no data-residency commitment appear anywhere in the captured pages, so a DPO couldn't sign off on this yet. 1 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
SuperOffice AS at a verifiable Oslo address with a Norwegian VAT number, hosting partner Visma Software International AS, and consent tools in even the Starter plan is EEA-to-EEA processing with consent baked in — structurally far better than a US default. But no DPA, no published subprocessor list, no data-residency statement, and no retention or deletion controls are evidenced, so I cannot sign off without a caveat file. 3 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Genuinely European bones: SuperOffice AS in Oslo (VAT 956753104), hosting through Visma Software International AS, and GDPR-compliant claims with consent tools in Starter. But the trust-center capture publishes no DPA and no subprocessor list, and the evidence marks residency and subprocessor exposure unknown — a DPO can't sign off on more than the entity and one named hosting partner. 3 2
The RevOps Integrator
SuperOffice AS is an Oslo entity with a published VAT number, hosting through Norwegian partner Visma Software International AS, marketed as 'Based in Europe', GDPR-compliant, with built-in consent tools — genuinely strong bones. But the captured pages show no DPA, no subprocessor list, no data-residency statement and no deletion controls, so I can't sign off above mid-scale. 2 3
The Migrator
Norwegian entity with Oslo HQ and VAT number, hosting partner Visma Software International AS, a GDPR-compliant posture claim and built-in consent tools — genuinely European bones. But no published DPA, subprocessor list, residency commitment or deletion controls appear in the evidence, which is what separates solid from signable for a DPO. 3 2
The Skeptic
The entity is genuinely European — SuperOffice AS, Oslo, Norwegian VAT number, Visma AS as hosting partner, consent tools in-product — which beats most. But the trust-centre capture yields no DPA, no subprocessor list and no residency commitment, leaving every sovereignty attribute 'unknown'; a Nordic vendor that won't document its subprocessors doesn't get to coast on geography. 1 2 3
Import, export & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting in with history intact, and out with everything — the anti-lock-in criterion.
0 — Import is a support ticket; export is contacts-only CSV missing notes, activities and files.
3 — Self-serve CSV import with mapping; export covers main objects but drops activity history, attachments or relations.
5 — Guided migration from major competitors, full-object CSV export, API access sufficient to rebuild the database elsewhere with effort.
8 — Complete export (all objects, history, files) self-serve in open formats, import with dedupe and dry-run, no API metering that prices exit out of reach.
10 — Exit as a feature: documented full-fidelity export, migration tooling both directions, and contractual data-return terms — leaving is a weekend, which is exactly why you can stay.
The Solo Seller
Complete silence: no importer, no export format, no migration tooling, no API clause — nothing on the homepage or pricing page even gestures at getting my data out. If the evidence shows me no exit, I score as if there isn't one. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence is silent on import, export, and any API; the only evidenced data movement is ERP sync with Visma Business and Dynamics NAV, which is not an exit path — I score by the anchors' rule on absence. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
The evidence says nothing at all about import, export, migration or API-based exit — the pricing page's feature lists contain no export story and the homepage is equally silent. Silence on exit is information: I cannot verify a buyer could leave with their history intact, so this anchors at the bottom. 2 1
The RevOps Integrator
Nothing in the captured pricing, homepage or trust-center facts shows an import path, an export path, an API or contractual data-return terms — 'Connect email, calendar, and documents' is about app linkage, not extraction. Silence here is information: exit is unevidenced, so lock-in is the working assumption until the vendor proves otherwise. 2 3
The Migrator
This is the one I weigh hardest, and the homepage, pricing page and trust center together say nothing about import, export, API access, migration tooling or contractual data-return terms. Silence on exit is information: I have to assume export is whatever a support ticket buys you, and I've paid that toll twice already. 1 2 3
Pricing transparency
panel disagrees
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
Every one of five tiers carries a real per-user number (€45–160) and AI is explicitly included with no add-on ransom, so I can compute one seat at €45/month in seconds — clean per-seat math with no bundles or minimums in sight. But the evidence shows no annual/monthly split, no VAT treatment, and no feature matrix telling me what €95 Growth does that €45 Starter doesn't, so the true invoice and the tier I need both stay half-ambiguous. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
All five tiers carry real public per-user EUR prices with the Starter cap stated, and AI is explicitly included in every plan with no add-on metering. Missing annual/monthly split and VAT treatment keeps it below the compute-the-real-invoice bar. 2 1
The Sales Ops Lead
All five tiers carry public per-user EUR prices with Starter's 5-user cap stated — a 40-seat Growth invoice is €3,800/month, pure arithmetic. What keeps it off 8: the capture shows no annual/monthly split, no VAT treatment, and no stated tier limits or overage rules. 2
The RevOps Integrator
All five tiers carry real per-user EUR numbers (45/65/95/130/160), Starter's 5-user cap is stated, and 'AI included in every plan, no add-ons required' kills the usual add-on concealment. Missing: annual/monthly split, VAT treatment, seat minimums and overage rules — enough to compute the sticker, not the renewal invoice. 1 2
The Migrator
All five tiers carry public per-user EUR figures with Starter's 5-user cap stated, and 'AI included in every plan, no add-ons required' removes the classic metering ambush. It falls short of full computability because billing-period split, VAT treatment, seat minimums and overage rules are nowhere on the page. 2 1
The Skeptic
Credit where due: all five tiers carry public per-user prices up to €160 at Super, and AI is explicitly not an add-on — no credit-metered AI trap here. But no annual/monthly split, no VAT treatment, and no per-tier limits beyond Starter's 5-user cap, so you can compute the first invoice, not the renewal. 1 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 ⚠ 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 — 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.
- 9 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 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
- 4 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
- 4 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
- 2 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
- 2 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
- 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.superoffice.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.superoffice.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Trust center www.superoffice.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.superoffice.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Contact & data model — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap www.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap www.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap docs.superoffice.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →