Customer Service & Helpdesk
Gmelius
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Gmelius Ltd. · gmelius.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Gmelius at a glance
- Vendor
- Gmelius Ltd.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Gmelius 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Gmelius is a shared inbox and helpdesk built inside Gmail: AI assistants and rules tag and route incoming email, with delegation, shared labels, templates, kanban boards and email analytics. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Gmelius is a shared inbox and helpdesk built inside Gmail: AI assistants and rules tag and route incoming email, with delegation, shared labels, templates, kanban boards and email analytics. Its strongest scores are customer data protection and sovereignty, resting on a published data processing agreement that can be accepted from the dashboard, deletion within 30 days of account deletion and 90 days after termination, an audit trail of agent actions, and a subprocessor schedule naming Google Cloud (EU / USA) plus Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio (USA) with transfer bases. Its weakest ground is breadth: omnichannel sits at 2-3, five judges at 2 and the shop operator at 3 for handling email thoroughly where the others found only email proven — the help centre states only accounts and aliases routed to the signed-in Google account are available — and knowledge and self-service scores sit at 0, with no public information on a knowledge base for customers. Ticketing core lands at 4-5, capped by SLA-style alerts rather than formalised SLAs; we found no public information on prices or billing terms.
Speaks for it
- Customer data protection scores 6-7 on a published data processing agreement acceptable from the dashboard, with deletion timelines, subject-rights controls and an audit trail of agent actions
- Sovereignty scores 6-7 with contracting via Gmelius SA of Geneva, hosting on Google Cloud, and a subprocessor schedule naming locations and transfer bases
- Real routing machinery for email — AI and rule-based dispatch, delegation, shared labels, templates and kanban boards — puts ticketing core at 4-5
- A documented public API over shared conversations, kanban boards and sequences, plus named Salesforce, HubSpot, Slack and Trello integrations and Zapier, Make and Relay.app connectors
- Breach notification within 72 hours and a SOC 2 Type II report available on request
Held against it
- Omnichannel scores 2-3: the help centre states only accounts and aliases routed to the currently signed-in Google account are available, and we found no public information on chat, telephony, a portal or social channels
- Knowledge and self-service scores sit at 0, with no public information on a knowledge base, public help centre or deflection for customers
- Ticketing core is capped at 4-5 by SLA-style alerts framed as internal goals, with no public information on priorities, escalation or search across tickets
- The subprocessor schedule lists Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio in the USA and Google Cloud as EU / USA, and we found no public information on a selectable EU region or self-hosted option
- We found no public information on prices, tier names or billing periods, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages
Best for
- Your team already lives in Gmail or Google Workspace and supports customers by email, and you want AI and rule-based routing, delegation and templates in the same screen
- You need documented GDPR handling: a published data processing agreement, deletion timelines, subject-rights controls, an audit trail and a published subprocessor schedule
- You want a European contracting entity — Gmelius SA of Geneva, in Switzerland, which the DPA describes as adequacy-recognised
- You have developers to build CRM context into tickets through the documented public API
Avoid if
- Your queue runs on live chat, telephony, a customer portal or social channels as well as email — only accounts and aliases routed to the signed-in Google account are documented
- You need contract-grade SLA management — the vendor's own help article frames SLAs as internal response-time goals for teams without formalised SLAs
- You aim to deflect ticket volume with customer self-service — we found no public information on a knowledge base or public help centre for customers
- You require a stated EU hosting region or self-hosted deployment — the hosting region is given only as EU / USA, with Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio listed in the USA
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Ticketing, queues & SLA | 2.5 of 5 |
| Channels in one queue | 1 of 5 |
| Customer data protection | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3.5 of 5 |
Ticketing, queues & SLA
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The engine: how work is routed, prioritised, escalated and measured — and whether an agent can find the ticket they need among ten thousand.
0 — Not a ticketing tool: requests stay in a shared mailbox or chat with no ticket, owner or status of their own.
3 — Tickets with assignment, a status and a conversation history, worked from a shared inbox with views or filters.
5 — Tickets routed by rules or automations to teams or agents, priorities and statuses, SLA targets or response-time reporting, and search across tickets.
8 — Business-hours-aware SLA policies per queue or customer with breach warnings and escalation, macros and triggers, merge and split, skills- or load-based assignment, and reporting on first-response and resolution time by agent and queue.
10 — The workload is managed rather than merely tracked: capacity-aware assignment, SLA per contract with reporting an account manager could show a customer, audit of every status change, and search that finds the ticket from a half-remembered phrase.
The Support Lead
This is a shared Gmail inbox engine rather than a classic ticket queue, but the routing is real: rules and AI dispatch tag and assign incoming emails, reply templates and email delegation are documented, and a help article shows SLA-style alerts built from rules to improve response times. Kanban boards and email analytics cover status workflow and reporting. We found no public information on priorities, ticket-wide search, or business-hours SLA policies with escalation. 3 4 5 9
The Agent Advocate
Work lives inside Gmail, which I like — one screen, not four. Shared inboxes with delegation and shared labels, workflow boards, rule-based and AI routing to the right stakeholders, templates, and a help article describing SLA-style alert rules as internal response-time goals alongside an analytics and reporting guide. We found no public information on priorities, merge and split, escalation on breach, or search across past tickets, so this is solid routing and status work, not contract-grade SLA management. 3 4 5 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
Emails land in Gmail shared inboxes where AI assistants tag, categorise and route them to the right stakeholders, and Rules can raise SLA-style alerts to improve response times — though the vendor itself presents SLAs as an internal goal rather than formalised targets. Kanban boards, delegation, templates and email analytics are documented, but we found no public information on business-hours SLA policies, escalation paths or search across tickets. 3 4 5 6
The Shop Operator
Rule-based and AI dispatch into a Gmail shared inbox with delegation, labels, notes and templates is documented, and rules can raise SLA-style response-time alerts backed by email analytics. On the rest of a managed workload — formal per-queue SLA policies, escalation, priorities and search across ten thousand tickets — I found no public information. A solid routing desk, not yet a workload manager. 3 4 5
The Integrator
The engine is a Gmail shared inbox with AI assistants that tag, categorise and route incoming emails, Rules, delegation, templates and an analytics guide. The help centre frames SLAs as SLA-style alerts built from Rules as an internal goal rather than formal SLA policies, and the captured pages give no ticket statuses or priorities, so this sits between a shared inbox with assignment and full rules-based routing with SLA reporting. 3 4 5 6
The Skeptic
Shared inboxes with email delegation, shared labels, notes and templates, plus AI and rule-based routing of incoming mail and an analytics guide — that is real routing machinery, not just a shared mailbox. But the vendor's own help page calls its SLA capability 'SLA-style alerts' for teams without formalised SLAs, and we found no public information on priorities, escalation, business-hours policies or search across tickets. 3 4 5
Channels in one queue
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Email, chat, phone, portal, messengers and social — judged on what actually lands in the same queue with the same history, not on how many channel logos the marketing page carries.
0 — No customer channel of its own; the product only works on tickets entered by hand or by another system.
3 — Email turned into tickets, with a web form or one further channel.
5 — Email, a web form or portal and live chat or a messenger landing as tickets in one inbox, with the customer's earlier conversations visible to the agent.
8 — The above plus telephony integration with call logging, at least one messenger (WhatsApp or similar) with its consent handling stated, social channels, and a customer portal where a requester can see their own tickets — all in one history.
10 — Channel is an implementation detail: every channel including voice and messengers writes to one conversation with one history, agents answer from one screen, and the customer can move between channels mid-issue without repeating themselves.
The Support Lead
Everything documented lands as email in Gmail: shared inboxes are built around a primary address or an alias, only accounts routed to the signed-in Google account are available, and past conversations import on creation. We found no public information on chat, telephony, a customer portal or a messenger arriving in the same queue, so email is the one proven customer channel. 5 6
The Agent Advocate
A shared inbox is built on a primary Gmail address or an alias, and the help centre states only the accounts and aliases routed to the currently signed-in Google account are available — email is the channel, full stop. We found no public information on live chat, telephony, a customer portal, messengers or social channels landing in the same queue with the same history. Fine if your customers only write to you; a wall if they also call or chat. 3 6
The Data Protection Officer
The only customer channel documented is email: a shared inbox built around a Gmail address or an alias, with past conversations imported at creation. We found no public information on live chat, telephony, a customer portal, messengers or social channels arriving in the same queue. 5 6
The Shop Operator
The documented channel is email only: a shared inbox built on the signed-in Google account's primary address or aliases, with a chosen amount of history imported. The help pages state only email accounts and aliases routed to that account are available, and I found no public information on chat, a customer portal, phone or WhatsApp landing in the same queue. Email is handled thoroughly; every channel my queue runs on besides email is unproven. 5 6
The Integrator
Every captured page describes email: shared inboxes can only be created for accounts and aliases routed to the currently signed-in Google account, with labels, drafts and notes on top. We found no public information on chat, telephony, a customer portal, messengers or social channels landing in the same queue. 5 6
The Skeptic
One channel lands in the queue: the Gmail account and its aliases — the help centre states only accounts and aliases routed to the currently signed-in Google account are available, so Slack, Salesforce and Trello are integrations rather than customer channels. We found no public information on live chat, a web form or customer portal, messengers, social or telephony feeding the same inbox and history. 3 5 6
Knowledge base & deflection
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the product reduces the number of tickets as well as organising them: public help centre, article workflow, suggestions to agents and to customers.
0 — No knowledge base or self-service of any kind; the product is a ticket inbox only.
3 — A knowledge base or FAQ with articles, internal or public, that agents can link in replies.
5 — A searchable public help centre with categories and its own branding, draft and publish states, and agents able to insert or suggest an article in a reply.
8 — Article suggestions to the customer before they submit and to the agent while they answer, multilingual articles, review dates or versioning that flag stale content, and reporting on which articles deflect.
10 — Knowledge is a managed asset: gaps identified from unanswered tickets, article performance measured against ticket volume by topic, versioned content with approval, and deflection reported as a number the team can act on.
The Support Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on a knowledge base, public help centre, article suggestions or deflection as a product capability. The feature pages we read cover shared inboxes, templates and AI routing; reply templates are canned text, not articles, and the vendor's help centre documents the product itself rather than a self-service feature for our customers. 3 5
The Agent Advocate not rated — no public information
We found no public information on a knowledge base, a public help centre, article workflow, suggestions to agents or customers, or deflection reporting. The captured feature pages list a shared inbox, email templates and AI reply assistants — agent-side tools, not customer self-service — so I cannot credit the product with reducing ticket volume. 3 5
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on a knowledge base, public help centre, article workflow or deflection features; the captured feature lists cover shared inbox, labels, drafts, notes, delegation and templates, none of which amount to self-service for customers. 1 3 5
The Shop Operator not rated — no public information
I found no public information on a knowledge base, a public help centre, article suggestions to customers or agents, or deflection reporting; the collaboration features listed are shared inboxes, labels, drafts, notes and templates. Nothing captured shows self-service that would bring a December ticket count down. 4 5 6
The Integrator not rated — no public information
We found no public information on a knowledge base, public help centre, article workflow or deflection features in the captured pages; the feature pages describe shared inboxes, routing, AI reply assistants and analytics only. 2 5 6
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on a knowledge base, help centre, article workflow or deflection in the captured homepage and feature pages — those list shared inboxes, routing and templates, and the legal pages speak only of compliance. Templates are canned replies, not articles, so nothing on this criterion is documented. 1 3 5
Customer data protection
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
A ticket archive is personal data written by the data subject. Retention, deletion, access control, subject rights under DSGVO, and what the vendor does with attachments — judged on what the product documents it executes.
0 — The vendor's own terms state that ticket content is used for purposes beyond providing the service, or that a data processing agreement is not offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement (DPA) offered, with agent roles that limit what an agent can do.
5 — A DPA published or signable online, agent roles and group- or queue-level visibility, and deletion of tickets or of a requester's data documented in the help centre.
8 — Automatic retention or deletion rules per queue or data category, attachment handling stated, an audit log of agent access or changes, documented support for access and erasure requests, and redaction of ticket content.
10 — Built for a data-protection audit: retention executed and evidenced per category, field-level redaction, full audit trail, subprocessor list published, and the vendor's own support access to customer instances documented and consent-gated.
The Support Lead
A DPA is published and can be accepted online from the dashboard, with SOC 2 Type II available on request, encryption in transit and at rest, deletion within thirty days of account deletion and ninety days after termination, and in-product controls to retrieve, correct, delete and export data. An audit trail of agent actions is documented, and the DPA carries a subprocessor schedule with locations and transfer mechanisms. We found no public information on automatic retention rules per queue, attachment handling or redaction of ticket content. 3 7 8
The Agent Advocate
The DPA is published and can be accepted straight from the dashboard, agent actions are recorded in an audit trail, deletion is documented (within 30 days of account deletion, and within 90 days after termination including audit trails, with backups capped at 90 days), and the services expose retrieve, correct, delete and export controls for subject requests while AI providers are contractually barred from retention or training. We found no public information on retention rules per queue or data category, redaction of ticket content, or attachment handling, which is what the top level of this criterion would need. 3 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
A DPA is published and can be accepted from inside the dashboard, backed by a subprocessor schedule with locations and legal bases, breach notification within 72 hours, deletion of company data within ninety days of termination, subject-rights controls to retrieve, correct, delete and export, and an audit trail of agent actions; AI processing runs on zero-data-retention terms with a workspace-level opt-out. What I most want to see — retention rules that execute per category, redaction of ticket content, attachment handling, and whether the vendor's own support can open a ticket — we found no public information on. 3 7 8
The Shop Operator
A data processing agreement is published and can be accepted from the dashboard, with deletion timelines stated — return or delete at the company's election, and all data including AI data and audit trails deleted within ninety days of termination — plus documented controls to retrieve, correct, delete and export, an audit trail of agent actions, and a subprocessor schedule with locations. On per-queue retention rules, attachment handling and redaction of ticket content I found no public information. 3 7 8
The Integrator
The data processing agreement is published and can be accepted online from the dashboard, with documented deletion timelines (within ninety days of termination, individual account data within thirty days), controls to retrieve, correct, delete and export data, an audit trail of agent actions, and a published subprocessor list with locations and transfer mechanisms. We found no public information on retention or deletion rules per queue, attachment handling or redaction of ticket content. 3 6 7 8
The Skeptic
A data processing agreement is published and can be accepted online from the dashboard, with deletion timelines of 30 to 90 days, documented controls to retrieve, correct, delete and export data, an audit trail of agent actions, and a subprocessor schedule naming locations with thirty days' change notice. We found no public information on automatic retention or deletion rules per queue, attachment handling, or redaction of ticket content. 3 7 8
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The systems a helpdesk has to reach — CRM, shop, order management, identity — and whether the API is documented for building or gated behind a partner conversation.
0 — A closed tool with no API and no integrations; context is copied in by hand.
3 — A handful of named integrations or a connector service such as Zapier, or an API with basic documentation.
5 — Named integrations for common CRM, shop or collaboration tools, a documented REST API, and webhooks or triggers that call other systems.
8 — An app marketplace with maintained bidirectional integrations, customer context from other systems shown inside the ticket, SSO and SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits and a sandbox.
10 — A component rather than a destination: versioned API with a deprecation policy, event streaming both directions, an app framework for in-ticket extensions, and integrations the vendor maintains rather than lists.
The Support Lead
Named integrations cover CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot), collaboration (Slack, Trello) and automation services (Zapier, Make, Relay.app), and a public API is documented over shared conversations, kanban boards and sequences, with worked examples such as assigning emails by CRM ownership and exporting to Google Sheets. A Model Context Protocol interface for AI agents is also described. We found no public information on an app marketplace, SSO or SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox. 3 8 9 10
The Agent Advocate
A documented public API over shared conversations, boards and sequences, with worked examples like assigning mail by CRM ownership and syncing customer details into internal notes — that is customer context next to the ticket, built by the buyer. Named integrations cover Salesforce, HubSpot, Slack and Trello, and Zapier, Make and Relay.app extend the reach. We found no public information on a maintained app marketplace, SSO or SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox. 3 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Named integrations cover CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot) and collaboration (Slack, Trello) alongside connector services (Zapier, Make, Relay.app), and there is a documented public API over shared conversations, boards and sequences with worked examples and a Model Context Protocol interface restricted to the vendor's own agents. We found no public information on an app marketplace, SSO or SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox. 3 8 9 10
The Shop Operator
A documented public API covers shared conversations, boards and sequences, with examples that include syncing a shop's customer details into internal notes — a build-it-yourself path rather than a maintained connector — alongside named integrations for Salesforce, HubSpot, Slack, Trello and the Zapier, Make and Relay.app family. I found no public information on an app marketplace, SSO and SCIM provisioning, rate limits or a sandbox, so getting the order onto the agent's screen without a second login remains my own integration project. 3 9 10
The Integrator
There is a documented public API over shared email conversations, kanban boards and sequences, with worked examples for CRM-based assignment and exporting to Google Sheets or external databases, plus named integrations for Salesforce and HubSpot and the Zapier, Make and Relay.app connector services. As an integrator I have to note we found no public information on webhooks, documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning or a sandbox in the captured pages. 3 5 8 9 10
The Skeptic
Named integrations for Salesforce, HubSpot, Slack and Trello, connector services Zapier, Make and Relay.app, and a documented public API over shared conversations, kanban boards and sequences with worked examples for CRM-based assignment and Google Sheets export. We found no public information on webhooks, an app marketplace, SCIM provisioning or documented rate limits. 3 9 10
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the ticket archive lives, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch it, and whether vendor support can read customer data. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it. Dimensions the evidence does not establish are unknown, not non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU on every dimension the evidence covers: non-EU vendor and contracting entity and non-EU hosting, with no EU option stated.
3 — One European element proven — an EU hosting option, an EU contracting entity or EU representative, or a published DPA — with the rest of the chain unstated.
5 — EU hosting stated as standard or selectable and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a DPA offered; the subprocessor chain is unstated or partly non-EU.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor in the EU, certification published, and a self-hosted or private-cloud option for buyers who need the archive on their own infrastructure.
The Support Lead
The contracting entity is Gmelius SA of Geneva, in adequacy-recognised Switzerland, with infrastructure on Google Cloud as the named provider and a published DPA using Standard Contractual Clauses with Swiss and UK addenda. The subprocessor schedule lists Google Cloud, Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio with locations and legal bases, several of them in the USA; the hosting region is given only as EU/USA, with no stated EU-standard option and no self-hosted or private-cloud route. 3 8
The Agent Advocate
You contract with Gmelius SA of Geneva, and the DPA itself states Switzerland is a jurisdiction recognised as adequate by the European Commission; infrastructure runs on Google Cloud and the DPA publishes a subprocessor schedule with locations — Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio in the USA, Google Cloud EMEA in EU and USA — each named with SCCs or the Data Privacy Framework as legal basis. That is a transparent chain with the non-EU touches openly declared; we found no public information confirming the ticket archive's data residency as EU or DACH, and no self-hosted or private-cloud option. 3 8
The Data Protection Officer
Contracting is with Gmelius SA of Geneva under Swiss law and Geneva jurisdiction, a country the DPA itself describes as adequacy-recognised, and the published DPA names its subprocessors with locations and the transfer basis for each — Cloudflare, Twilio and HubSpot in the USA, Google Cloud across EU and USA. Residency remains the open question: infrastructure is stated only as Google Cloud, with no hosting region named as standard or selectable and no self-hosted option documented. 3 8
The Shop Operator
The contracting entity is Gmelius SA of Geneva, hosting is stated on Google Cloud with the company resident in Switzerland, and a subprocessor schedule is published with locations and legal bases — Google Cloud in the EU or USA, Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio in the USA under standard contractual clauses and the Data Privacy Framework. That is a transparent, largely DACH-rooted chain with its non-EU legs named, though I found no public information on a self-hosted or private-cloud option. 3 8
The Integrator
Gmelius SA is a Swiss company in Geneva under Swiss law, hosting on Google Cloud, with a published DPA naming its subprocessors and their locations — Google Cloud EU/USA, Cloudflare and Twilio in the USA — each with Standard Contractual Clauses and Data Privacy Framework bases. EU hosting as a stated standard or selectable option is not established by the captured pages, so this is a European contracting entity with a transparent but partly non-EU chain. 3 8
The Skeptic
The captured legal pages prove a Swiss contracting entity in Geneva, hosting on Google Cloud, and a published data processing agreement naming each subprocessor with its location and transfer basis — Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio sit in the USA, and the primary host is listed 'EU / USA'. We found no public information on a selectable EU region, named EU data centres, or a self-hosted option. 3 8
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a support lead can compute the real annual invoice for their agent count — including the channels and features they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price or one priced tier, per agent or flat.
5 — Per-agent prices public for the main tiers with the billing period stated and the main features per tier listed.
8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with per-agent maths, telephony or messenger costs and light-agent or contact limits given, billing period, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: a calculator or table producing the annual invoice for a given agent count and channel selection, including usage-metered channels and overage.
The Support Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing — no tier names, per-agent prices, billing periods or add-on costs appear on the captured homepage or features pages. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for twelve agents from what we read. 1 5
The Agent Advocate not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing — the captured pages show no tier, per-agent figure, billing period, minimum term or feature-by-tier comparison. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their team from these pages alone. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on prices, tiers, billing periods or add-ons; the only payment-related statement on the captured pages is that Stripe, PCI DSS Level 1, handles payments and no full card data is stored. 1 8
The Shop Operator not rated — no public information
I found no public pricing information on the captured pages — no per-agent price, no tier or feature list with numbers, no billing term, minimum term or VAT treatment. A support lead cannot compute the annual invoice for their agent count from what I read. 1 5
The Integrator not rated — no public information
We found no public information on prices, per-agent rates, tiers, billing periods or terms in the captured pages; the homepage and feature pages we read name no figures. 2 5
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on prices, tier names, billing periods or light-agent limits in the captured homepage and feature pages; the only payment-related fact is that Stripe processes payments. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their agent count from anything captured here. 1 5
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Gmelius
Is Gmelius European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Gmelius is based.
Where does Gmelius store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Gmelius have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Gmelius?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates Zendesk (3.5/5), HubSpot Service Hub (3.5/5) and Deskpro (3.5/5) highest among the other 35 Customer Service & Helpdesk products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Zammad (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Gmelius alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 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 processing agreement, 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 found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (gmelius.com, gmelius.com/legal/cookie-policy, gmelius.com/legal/dpa, help.gmelius.com/shared-inbox/sla-for-shared-inboxes, gmelius.com/features/automated-email-routing-dispatch, help.gmelius.com/shared-inbox/primary-email-address and 4 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 5 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
- 1 product 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Data processing agreement (dpa) — found from the homepage gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap help.gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap help.gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Customer data protection — found from sitemap help.gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Customer data protection — found from sitemap gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & API — found from sitemap help.gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap help.gmelius.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →