Deskpro

The Support Lead

Automated routing by team, language and priority with workload distribution rules, an OnHold status, macros and escalation triggers, and SLA plans applied per queue with SLA compliance monitoring in reporting — that is most of what my twelve agents need day to day. A community page shows that excluding on-hold time from SLA plans is still in development, which would inflate my response numbers whenever we park a ticket. I found no public information on business-hours-aware SLA policies, ticket merge or split, or search across ticket bodies. 4 6 7 1

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

Rules-based routing by request type, language, team and priority, workload distribution rules, queues with SLA plans and SLA compliance monitoring, plus snippets, macros and escalation triggers — that is the engine I want under me. But I found no public information on full-text search across ticket bodies, merge and split, or business-hours-aware SLA policies, and excluding OnHold tickets from SLA clocks was still marked in development, so I stop short of the higher marks. 4 6 1 1

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

There is a real engine here: routing rules by request type, language, team and priority, an on-hold status, SLA plans applied to tickets with SLA tracking, macros, snippets and escalation triggers, and a dashboard reporting response times and resolution rates. I found no public information on SLA breach warnings, business-hours-aware SLA policies, merge and split, full-text search across ticket bodies, or resolution reporting broken down by agent and queue; and the captured community page shows a request to exclude on-hold tickets from SLA plans still marked as in development. 6 4 1 1

Report an error

The Shop Operator

Routing by request type, language, team and priority, plus macros, escalation triggers, workload distribution rules, SLA plans applied to tickets and cross-channel SLA compliance reporting are all evidenced, and the on-hold status shows a working status model. But we found no public information on full-text search across ticket bodies, merge and split, or business-hours-aware SLA policies — and the treatment of on-hold tickets under an SLA plan was still listed as a feature in development. 4 6 1 1

Report an error

The Integrator

Routing by request type, language, team and priority, workload distribution rules, macros and escalation triggers, plus SLA plans that apply to tickets with cross-channel SLA compliance reporting, are all on the record, and an OnHold status whose SLA treatment is being refined shows a working status model. I found no public information on business-hours-aware SLA policies, merge and split, first-response reporting broken down by agent and queue, or ticket search at all — and search is what makes ten thousand tickets findable. A solid mid-range engine, with the top tier of the capability unevidenced. 4 6 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

Rules-based routing by request type, language, team and priority, macros, escalation triggers, SLA tracking and cross-channel SLA reporting are all published, and an on-hold ticket status exists. But the vendor's own community pages show that excluding on-hold tickets from the SLA clock is still only in development, and I found no public information on business-hours SLA policies, merge and split, full-text search of ticket bodies, or reporting broken down by agent and queue. 6 1 1 4

Report an error

The Support Lead

Email, forms, live chat, voice with call recordings, WhatsApp via the Business API, Facebook, Instagram, Slack and Teams all land in one ticket system, and the WhatsApp page spells out that a Monday WhatsApp message and a Tuesday email share one ticket history with SLAs applied like email. Context preserved across channel switches and agents answering from one screen is stated outright. I found no public information on a customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets, or on consent handling for messengers. 6 7 1

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

Email, forms, live chat, voice with call routing and recordings, social and WhatsApp all feed one ticket history, and the pages state a customer moving from WhatsApp to email lands in the same thread with no repeating themselves — one screen, not four tabs. I found no public information on a customer portal where requesters see their own tickets, and consent handling for the messenger channel is not stated, which holds it below the top of this range. 6 7 1

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Email, forms, live chat, voice with call routing and recordings, social, and WhatsApp or SMS are all claimed to land as tickets in one queue, with the vendor stating a customer who switches channel continues the same conversation and WhatsApp sharing ticket history with email. I found no public information on consent handling for the messengers or on a portal where a requester can see their own tickets, which is what holds this below the top band. 6 7 1

Report an error

The Shop Operator

This is what I judge on and the pages deliver: WhatsApp converts inbound to tickets, lands in the same ticket history as email and chat, with the same routing engine and SLAs applying, voice with recordings sits in the same workspace, and the vendor states a customer switching channels continues the conversation without repeating themselves. We found no public information on consent handling for the messenger channel or a customer portal where requesters see their own tickets, so I stop short of the top. 6 7 1

Report an error

The Integrator

Every named channel — email, forms, live chat, voice with calls and recordings, WhatsApp and SMS, Facebook and Instagram, Teams and Slack — is claimed to land in one unified ticketing system, and the pages state a customer switching channel continues the same conversation without repeating themselves. The WhatsApp page is the operational corroboration I look for: inbound messages convert to tickets automatically, share ticket history with email, run the same automation engine and SLA tracking, and agents reply from inside one workspace. I found no public information on a portal where requesters see their own tickets, or on WhatsApp consent handling, which holds this short of the very top. 6 7 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

The logo count is high — email, chat, voice, social, forms and messengers — and the unification claim is backed by a concrete mechanism: a WhatsApp message on Monday and an email on Tuesday land in the same ticket history with the same SLA treatment. The remaining channels ride on one blanket "unify everything" sentence, and I found no public information on consent handling for messengers or a portal where requesters can see their own tickets. 6 7 1

Report an error

The Support Lead

Article suggestions while the customer types — "many find what they need and never submit" — is the deflection claim I care about, backed by content analytics with views, ratings and comments and a chatbot that escalates into a live conversation. What I cannot see is the management side: I found no public information on draft-and-publish workflow, article approval, multilingual content, review dates for stale articles, or deflection reported as a number against ticket volume. 6 8 1

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

Articles are suggested to the customer as they type — deflection at the point of submission — and per-article views, ratings and comments give me something to act on. I found no public information on editorial workflow, versioning, multilingual articles, review dates for stale content, or article suggestions shown to agents, so this reads as a deflection feature rather than knowledge managed as an asset. 8 1

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Real-time article suggestions while a customer types, explicitly aimed at deflection, plus article analytics on views, ratings and comments, show the knowledge base is meant to cut ticket volume rather than merely hold answers, and self-service is listed as a core module. I found no public information on editorial workflow with draft and publish states, multilingual articles, review dates for stale content, suggestions surfaced to the agent while answering, or deflection reported as a number the team can act on. 8 1

Report an error

The Shop Operator

Articles are suggested to the customer while they type the ticket — 'many find what they need and never submit' — which is exactly the deflection I look for in the December ticket count, and article views, ratings and comments are reported. We found no public information on multilingual articles, review dates flagging stale content, an editorial workflow with draft and publish states, agent-side article suggestions, or deflection reported as a number. 8 1

Report an error

The Integrator

Real-time article suggestions while the customer types, with the explicit claim that many find what they need and never submit, plus article analytics on views, ratings and comments, show knowledge tied to ticket flow rather than a static article list. I found no public information on editorial workflow, draft and publish states, versioning, review dates for stale content, multilingual articles, agent-side suggestions or deflection reporting. That is a functioning help centre, but not yet knowledge managed as an asset. 8 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

The knowledge-base page publishes article suggestions while a customer types their ticket — a genuine deflection mechanism — plus article analytics with views, ratings and comments. What I did not find is any public information on editorial workflow or approval states, versioning, multilingual articles, review dates that flag stale content, or reporting that attributes deflection to specific articles. 8 1

Report an error

The Support Lead

Deletion actually executes: data leaves the primary stores immediately on request, with encrypted offsite backups purged on a 60-day rotation, and AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.2/1.3 in transit, 2FA for admins, agents and customers, and admin audit logs are all stated. Retention of the ticket archive itself is only as long as there is a legitimate business need — no stated period — and the audit logs cover administrator changes rather than who opened which ticket. I found no public information on a published DPA, configurable agent roles or queue-level visibility, or attachment handling. 2 3

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

Deletion is executable and specific — immediate from primary stores on request, offsite backups purged on a 60-day rotation — with AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.2/1.3 in transit and audit logs for administrator changes. But those audit logs cover administrator changes rather than who opened which ticket, and I found no public information on a published DPA, configurable agent roles and queue-level visibility, a stated retention period for the ticket archive, or redaction of ticket content. 2 3

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Deletion is the one thing that clearly executes: data is securely deleted immediately from primary stores on request, encrypted offsite backups purge on a 60-day rotation, and encryption at rest and in transit is stated. But the audit log covers changes made by administrators, not which agent opened which ticket; the only retention statement is an open-ended legitimate-business-need clause rather than a stated period for ticket content; and I found no public information on configurable agent roles, queue-level visibility, redaction or pseudonymisation, attachment handling, a published subprocessor list, or whether the vendor's own support can open a customer's ticket. 3 2

Report an error

The Shop Operator

Deletion actually executes: secure deletion from primary stores immediately on request with off-site backups purged on a 60-day rotation, backed by AES-256 at rest, TLS in transit and 2FA across admins, agents and customers. But we found no public information on a signable DPA, a stated retention period for ticket data itself, queue-level visibility or field-level redaction, and the audit logs cover changes made by administrators rather than who opened which ticket. 2 3

Report an error

The Integrator

Deletion executes rather than being arranged: data is securely deleted immediately from primary stores on request, encrypted offsite backups are purged on a 60-day rotation, AES-256 at rest is stated, and comprehensive audit logs cover administrator changes. I found no public information on a signable DPA, configurable agent roles or queue-level visibility, a stated retention period for ticket data (the privacy notice gives only a legitimate-need and legal-requirement basis), attachment handling, or an audit trail of who opened which ticket. A real deletion path, but the buyer-facing paperwork and access controls are unevidenced. 2 3

Report an error

The Skeptic

Deletion on request is described as executed immediately, with encrypted offsite backups purged through a 60-day rotation, and data is encrypted in transit and at rest. But the published audit log covers changes made by administrators, not who opened which ticket, and I found no public information on a signable data-processing agreement, configurable agent roles or queue-level visibility, or a stated retention period for live ticket data. 3 2

Report an error

The Support Lead

A documented read/write API, webhooks on new ticket, status change and reply sent, SSO across Active Directory, LDAP, SAML, Okta and Azure, a marketplace, Zapier to 1,000+ apps, and apps built in JavaScript and HTML right in the agent interface — that in-interface framework is the standout for a team like mine. I found no public information on named CRM or shop integrations, SCIM provisioning, rate limits or a sandbox. A captured support article on the user API is marked archived with a last-update date of March 2010, which I would want explained before we build against that endpoint. 12 13 1

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

A read-and-write API, webhooks on the core ticket events, SSO across Active Directory, LDAP and SAML, an apps marketplace, 1,000+ apps through Zapier, and custom apps built in JavaScript right in the agent interface — a genuinely usable integration story. I found no public information on documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning, a sandbox, or vendor-maintained integrations with named CRM and shop systems. 12 1

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A read-and-write API for external systems, webhooks on core ticket events such as new ticket and status change, single sign-on from Active Directory, LDAP, SAML, Okta and more, an apps marketplace, 1,000+ apps through Zapier, and custom apps built in JavaScript directly in the agent interface give a genuine integration story. I found no public information on named native CRM or shop integrations, documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning, a sandbox, or an API versioning and deprecation policy. 12 3

Report an error

The Shop Operator

A read and write API, webhooks on new ticket, status change and reply sent, SSO from Active Directory, LDAP, SAML, Okta and Azure, a Zapier bridge to 1,000+ apps, and JavaScript apps built directly into the agent interface give me real building blocks. But the shop context I need in front of the agent — named connectors for common shop or CRM systems shown inside the ticket — has no public information beyond an in-built CRM and an apps marketplace by name; we also found no public information on documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning or a sandbox. 12 1 1

Report an error

The Integrator

A read-and-write API, outbound webhooks on new ticket, status change and reply sent, an Apps Marketplace, Zapier to a thousand-plus apps, SSO across SAML, LDAP, Okta, Azure and JWT, and custom apps built in the agent interface with JavaScript and HTML — that is a platform I can build on, and the in-interface app framework is the standout. But I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits, a sandbox, API versioning or a deprecation policy, or on native named integrations for common CRM and shop systems; context arrives through Zapier and an in-built CRM instead. The one captured community page about the user API is marked archived with a last update of 2010, which tempers my confidence in the freshness of the public developer surface. 3 12 13 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

A read-and-write API, webhooks on core ticket events, single sign-on across several providers, a Zapier bridge and an app framework that builds JavaScript and HTML extensions directly in the agent interface are all published. I found no public information on named native CRM or shop integrations, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox, so the API's documentation depth beyond the read/write claim is unverifiable. 12 3

Report an error

The Support Lead

EU region hosting is standard — customers choose US, EU or UK — with 22 enterprise hosting countries on AWS and a genuine on-premise, VPC, regional-cloud or sovereign-cloud option including private AI where data stays in our environment. Against that, I found no public information on subprocessors, the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, and the compliance certifications listed belong to the AWS data centres rather than the vendor itself. 3 1 1

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

Customers choose EU, UK or US hosting exclusively as standard on all plans, enterprise can pick from 22 countries, AWS is the named provider, and on-premise, sovereign-cloud and VPC deployment with private AI means the archive can stay on your own infrastructure. But the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, no subprocessor list is published, and I found no public information on published certification for EU operations. 3 10 1

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

EU is offered as a standard region customers can choose exclusively across plans, AWS is the named data-centre provider, and self-hosted, VPC and sovereign-cloud deployments exist for a buyer who needs the archive on their own infrastructure. But the contracting entity's jurisdiction and ownership are unevidenced, no subprocessor list is published beyond incidental mentions of billing and infrastructure providers, transfers outside the region are contemplated with standard contractual clauses, and residency was not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages — for years of customers' own words in tickets, I need those answers before this scores well. 3 1 1 10 2

Report an error

The Shop Operator

EU is a selectable hosting region across all plans with exclusive regional hosting, the data-centre provider AWS is named, and there is a genuinely sovereign path: on-premise, VPC, regional or sovereign cloud with private AI keeping data in the customer's environment. But the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership and any published subprocessor list are unconfirmed — we found no public information on them — and non-EU parts of the chain such as CloudFlare and Bedrock are named without a published legal basis per processor. 3 10 1

Report an error

The Integrator

Cloud accounts deploy exclusively into a customer-chosen US, EU or UK region as standard, on named AWS infrastructure, with enterprise customers choosing from 22 countries and self-hosted, on-premise, VPC and sovereign-cloud options including private AI; transfers are safeguarded by Standard Contractual Clauses and the UK's international data transfer agreement. But the captured pages state no contracting-entity jurisdiction, I found no public information on a published subprocessor list or on whether vendor support can read customer instances, and the certifications listed belong to the data-centre provider rather than the vendor. A strong hosting story with the chain above it unverified. 2 3 10 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

EU, UK and US hosting regions are offered as standard with AWS named as the data-centre provider, plus on-premise, sovereign-cloud and private-AI deployment paths, and standard contractual clauses are cited for transfers. But the contracting entity's jurisdiction and ownership are recorded as unknown, no subprocessor list is published, and I found no public information on whether vendor support can read customer data; the captured security page states a regional hosting choice as standard while the independently recorded attributes still mark data residency as unconfirmed. 3 10 1

Report an error

The Support Lead

I found no public pricing in the captured pages — no per-agent figure, no tier prices, no billing period — so I cannot compute an annual invoice for my twelve agents from public information alone. The captured homepage names Deskpro Cloud and Deskpro Private editions without a number attached to either. 1 1

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

I found no public information on pricing at all — no per-agent figure, no tiers, no billing period on any captured page. A support lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice for their agent count from public material. 1 1 1

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

We found no public information on pricing in the captured pages: no per-agent prices, no tier boundaries showing where channels or SLA features begin, no billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment, so a support lead cannot compute an annual invoice from public evidence alone. 1 1

Report an error

The Shop Operator

The captured pages give no prices at all: no per-agent figures, no tier structure with billing period, no VAT treatment and no mention of light-agent or contact limits, even though cloud and private deployment options are named. We found no public pricing information, so computing the annual invoice for my agent count is a sales conversation rather than arithmetic. 1 1

Report an error

The Integrator

The captured pages name the cloud and private deployment offerings but attach no price to any of them, and I found no public information on per-agent prices, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment. A support lead cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from public pages, so as far as this evidence goes, every plan is an unpriced conversation. 1 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

I found no public information on prices, tiers, billing periods or per-agent figures anywhere in the captured pages, so a support lead cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from what is published. There is likewise nothing on which plan the SLA or channel features begin in, or on light-agent and contact limits; the AI capabilities are described without any indication of whether they are included or metered. 1 1 1

Report an error