Customer Service & Helpdesk
Gorgias
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Gorgias Inc. · www.gorgias.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.
Gorgias at a glance
- Vendor
- Gorgias Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Gorgias 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Gorgias Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Gorgias Inc. is an ecommerce helpdesk that the bench scores highest on omnichannel — email, live chat, SMS, Facebook/Instagram and voice all writing to one customer timeline, with a call-to-email handoff, scored 7-8 — and on integrations, where Shopify, Magento and BigCommerce order data lands inside the ticket so agents can refund or discount without leaving it, scored 4-6. Core ticketing sits at 4 with no spread: rules-based triage, auto-assignment and macros with usage counts are evidenced, while no public information was found on SLA timers, priorities or ticket search. The lowest readings are customer data protection, 0-2, and sovereignty, 0-1, where jurisdiction of the contracting entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure all read unknown, and no public information was found on a data processing agreement, retention periods or an audit log of ticket access. Weighted totals span 1.8-5.0, highest from the ecommerce judge and lowest from the data protection officer, and the flagged splits list none. The vendor publishes no prices; pricing transparency is reported but not counted.
Speaks for it
- Email, chat, SMS, voice and Facebook/Instagram messages land in one workspace with a single customer timeline across channels
- Shopify, Magento and BigCommerce order data sits inside the ticket, letting agents refund, discount or create an order without leaving the helpdesk
- Rules auto-triage and auto-assign tickets, and macros can tag, cancel or refund an order with per-macro usage counts reported
- A public, searchable Help Center with predictive search is included in all plans at no extra cost and doubles as the agents' internal reference
- A public developer portal with a changelog evidences the API
Held against it
- No public information was found on SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies
- No public information was found on a data processing agreement, retention periods, agent roles or an audit log of who opened which ticket
- Contracting entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure all read unknown
- No public information was found on webhooks, single sign-on, documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning or a sandbox
- The claimed 50% ticket reduction from self-service tools is a headline figure, with no public information on per-article deflection reporting
Best for
- You run a Shopify, Magento or BigCommerce store and want order data plus refund and discount actions inside the ticket
- You support shoppers over email, chat, SMS, Facebook/Instagram and phone and need everything on one customer timeline
- You want a public, searchable help centre in every plan, plus self-service order tracking via the Automation Add-On
Avoid if
- Your queue depends on SLA timers, breach warnings and search across ticket bodies — core ticketing scored 4 with no public information on any of these
- You need a signable data processing agreement, stated retention periods and an audit log of ticket access before adoption — customer data protection scored 0-2
- Your procurement requires knowing where the ticket archive is hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction and the subprocessor list — sovereignty scored 0-1
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Ticketing, queues & SLA | 2 of 5 |
| Channels in one queue | 3.5 of 5 |
| Knowledge base & deflection | 2.5 of 5 |
| Customer data protection | 0.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 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 — A shared mailbox with labels; no ownership, no status model, no history beyond the thread.
3 — Tickets with assignment and open/closed status, but routing is manual, there are no SLA timers and search covers subject lines only.
5 — Queues with rules-based routing, priorities, a working status model, SLA timers with breach warnings, and full-text search across ticket bodies.
8 — Business-hours-aware SLA policies per queue or customer, escalation chains, macros and triggers, merge and split, 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
Rules that auto-triage and auto-assign, macros that can tag, refund or cancel an order, and macro usage counts are real queue machinery, and the voice pages report response times and agent performance. But I found no public information on SLA timers or breach warnings, priorities, a status model, or ticket search — the parts my team lives or dies by — so this sits below a working SLA setup. 2 3 4
The Agent Advocate
Routing and macros are the real thing here — rules that triage and auto-assign tickets, macros that tag, auto-assign and even refund an order, with usage counts so you can see which replies earn their keep. But I found no public information on SLA timers, priorities, or a working status model, and nothing on search that reaches ticket bodies — that last one is where an agent actually lives after year two. Rules-based routing without SLA clocks lands this between basic assignment and a managed queue. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Rules-based triage and auto-assignment are evidenced, macros can auto-assign, tag, refund or cancel an order from the ticket composer, and usage counts are reported per macro; voice analytics cover response times and agent performance. We found no public information on SLA timers, escalation chains, full-text search across ticket bodies, or any audit trail of status changes — the record I would ask to see first. 2 3 4
The Shop Operator
Rules that triage and auto-assign, tags, and a macro library that can cancel or refund an order straight from the composer are genuine workload management for peak season, and macro usage counts plus voice analytics on response times and agent performance give me some measurement. But I found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, escalation chains, or search across ticket bodies, which is the spine of this criterion, so it sits below the mid-band. 2 3 4
The Integrator
Rules auto-triage and auto-assign tickets, macros carry trigger actions like cancelling or refunding an order with usage counts reported, and voice analytics report call volume, response times and agent performance. We found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, escalation chains, priorities or search across ticket bodies. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
Automated routing is real and quoted — rules triage tickets to the right person, and macros can auto-assign, tag, cancel or refund orders — but the captured pages say nothing about SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, escalation chains, merge and split, or what ticket search actually covers, and I found no public information on which tier, if any, gates SLA policies. That places the engine above purely manual assignment without reaching the level defined by SLA timers and full-text search. 2 3
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 — Email only.
3 — Email plus one more channel, but the second lives in its own inbox: no shared history, and a customer who switches channel starts again.
5 — Email, a web form or portal and live chat all landing as tickets in one queue, with the customer's history visible whichever channel they used.
8 — The above plus telephony integration with call logging, at least one messenger (WhatsApp, Signal or similar) with its consent handling stated, and a customer portal where a requester can see their own tickets.
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
Email with Gmail and Outlook sync, live chat, SMS, Facebook and Instagram, plus voice with routing, IVR, recordings and call-to-email handoff, all described as writing to one customer timeline across channels — that is the shape I want. I found no public information on a messenger such as WhatsApp with stated consent handling, or on a portal where a requester sees their own tickets, which is what separates the top marks. 3 4
The Agent Advocate
Email, chat, SMS, voice and Facebook/Instagram all pull into one customer timeline, agents answer from one workspace, and a call can hand off to email without losing context — that is the one-screen test, passed. What I found no public information on: consent handling for the messenger channels, and a portal where a requester sees their own tickets rather than a public help centre. 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Voice, chat, SMS, email and Facebook and Instagram messages all land in one customer timeline, with a call-to-email handover that keeps context and IVR, routing and transfers on the voice side. We found no public information on consent handling for the social messaging channels, or on a portal where a requester can see their own tickets. 3 4
The Shop Operator
Voice, chat, SMS, email and Facebook/Instagram DMs all write to one customer timeline, with a call-to-email handoff that keeps context — that is exactly what a 'where is my parcel' queue needs. I found no public information on WhatsApp, on consent handling for messengers, or on a portal where the shopper can see their own tickets, which is what keeps it short of the top band. 3 4 5
The Integrator
Email, live chat, SMS, Facebook and Instagram messages and phone calls are all claimed to land in one workspace with a single customer timeline spanning voice, chat, SMS and email, and a call can move to email without losing context. The captured pages do not state consent handling for the messenger channels, and we found no public information on a portal where a requester can see their own tickets. 3 4 5
The Skeptic
The logo-counting question is answered in the vendor's own words: all messages "regardless of channel" pulled into a single view, a full customer timeline across Voice, Chat, SMS and Email, and a call that hands off to email without losing context — email, chat, SMS, voice and Facebook/Instagram all evidenced as one workspace with one history. Keeping it below the top level: I found no public information on consent handling for the SMS or social channels, and no portal where a requester sees their own tickets — the help centre is public content, not a customer's ticket view. 3 4
Knowledge base & deflection
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; answers live in agents' heads and old tickets.
3 — A basic article list, public or internal, with no editorial workflow, no versioning and no link between articles and tickets.
5 — A searchable public help centre with categories, draft and publish states, and agents able to insert an article into a reply.
8 — Article suggestions to the customer before they submit and to the agent while they answer, multilingual articles, review dates 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
A public Help Center with predictive search, industry templates, internal use for agents, Google Analytics traffic tracking and self-service order tracking with the Automation Add-On is genuine deflection machinery, included at no extra cost. The 50% ticket reduction is a vendor claim I would check against my own queue, and I found no public information on draft and publish workflow, article suggestions to agents, or reporting on which articles actually deflect. 5
The Agent Advocate
The Help Center is public, searchable with predictive search, doubles as the agents' internal reference, and carries a claim that self-service tools cut helpdesk tickets by up to 50%. But I found no public information on draft-and-publish workflow, versioning, or inserting an article into a reply — without the link between articles and tickets, knowledge stays a library rather than a managed asset. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
A searchable public help centre with SEO-oriented articles, predictive search and downloadable templates is evidenced, plus self-service order tracking behind an add-on and a vendor claim that self-service reduces helpdesk tickets by up to 50%. We found no public information on draft-and-publish editorial states, multilingual articles, stale-content review dates, article suggestions to customers before submission or to agents while answering, or deflection reporting per article. 5
The Shop Operator
A searchable public Help Center with predictive search, SEO, industry templates, live chat on the page, included in all plans at no extra cost, plus self-service order tracking and address changes under an automation add-on — and they claim self-service reduces tickets by 50%, which is my kind of number. I found no public information on draft and publish states, article suggestions to agents or before submission, review dates, or reporting on which articles actually deflect, so the 50% stays a claim I cannot act on per article. 5
The Integrator
The help centre is public, searchable with a predictive search bar, included in all plans at no extra cost, doubles as an internal knowledge base for agents, and its traffic is tracked through Google Analytics; self-service order management is offered with a claim of cutting helpdesk tickets by 50 percent. We found no public information on draft-and-publish editorial states, article suggestions to customers or agents, multilingual articles, review dates, or reporting on which articles deflect. 5
The Skeptic
The help centre is real, public, searchable with predictive search, included with all plans at no extra cost, doubles as the agents' internal reference, and an automation add-on lets customers track and modify orders before a ticket exists; the claimed 50% ticket reduction is a headline number, not a report the team can read. I found no public information on draft and publish states, versioning, review dates, article suggestions to agents while answering, or per-article deflection reporting. 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, and what the vendor does with attachments — judged on what executes rather than what is promised.
0 — No retention policy stated, no deletion path, agents all see everything, and no DPA is published.
3 — A DPA on request and coarse roles; deletion is described as something the customer arranges, and there is no stated retention period.
5 — A signable DPA published, configurable agent roles and queue-level visibility, a stated retention period, and deletion of a requester's data that can actually be executed.
8 — Automatic retention rules per queue or data category, attachment handling stated, an audit log of who opened which ticket, documented support for access and erasure requests, and pseudonymisation or 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
The only protection-related fact on the captured pages is a legal clause under which Gorgias audits developers' compliance with personal-information deletion requests. I found no public information on retention periods, a signable data processing agreement, agent roles or queue-level visibility, or an audit log of ticket access — thin comfort for a ticket archive full of customers' personal data. 6
The Agent Advocate
The only deletion statement on the legal page is about Gorgias auditing app developers' compliance with deletion requests, which is not a retention policy for the ticket archive. I found no public information on a signable DPA, a stated retention period, configurable agent roles, or an audit log of who opened which ticket. 6
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages say almost nothing I can act on: we found no public information on a signable DPA, a stated retention period, an executable deletion of a requester's data, configurable agent roles, attachment handling, redaction, or an audit log of who opened which ticket. The only deletion-related item is an API terms clause under which Gorgias may audit developers' compliance with end-user deletion requests — a right the vendor holds over third parties, not a capability a buyer can execute. 6
The Shop Operator
The one protection-related item anywhere is an API-terms clause acknowledging end-user deletion requests that Gorgias may audit — thin comfort for an archive of shopper personal data. I found no public information on a published DPA, a stated retention period, agent roles or queue-level visibility, an audit log of ticket access, or attachment handling. 6
The Integrator
The only protection-related statement found is that end users can request deletion of personal information obtained through the API and that Gorgias audits compliance with such requests. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, retention periods, agent roles or queue-level visibility, attachment handling, or an audit log of ticket access. 6
The Skeptic
A ticket archive is personal data, and on this the captured pages say almost nothing: we found no public information on a data processing agreement, retention periods, a deletion path for a requester's data, agent roles, attachment handling, or an audit log of who opened which ticket. The one protection-adjacent clause found lets Gorgias audit an app developer's compliance with deletion requests under the API licence terms — an obligation on builders, not a protection a buyer's privacy lead can rely on. 6
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 — No API and no named integrations; context is copied in by hand.
3 — A handful of native integrations and a read-mostly API, with no webhooks and no documented rate limits.
5 — Named integrations for common CRM and shop systems, a documented REST API with keys, webhooks for the core ticket events, and SSO.
8 — Maintained bidirectional integrations, customer context from other systems shown inside the ticket, 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
Shopify, Magento and BigCommerce pull order context right into the ticket to the point an agent can refund, discount or create an order without leaving the helpdesk, and a developer portal with a changelog signals a documented API. I found no public information on webhooks, SSO, rate limits or a sandbox, and no CRM system is named — strong for an ecommerce shop, short of a general helpdesk's reach. 3 4 6
The Agent Advocate
Shopify, Magento and BigCommerce data lands inside the ticket with in-reply actions like refunds and discounts, and there is a developer portal with a changelog — customer context in the ticket is the part an agent feels daily. But the captured legal page is a licence agreement, not API documentation, and I found no public information on webhooks, documented rate limits, SSO or SCIM. 3 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
Shop and email integrations are named — Shopify, Magento, BigCommerce, Gmail and Outlook — with refunds and discounts issued from inside the ticket, and a developer portal with a changelog and a 24/7 API availability commitment. We found no public information on webhooks, SSO, documented rate limits, a sandbox, or SCIM provisioning, and the API terms place the cost of mandatory updates on the developer. 3 4 6
The Shop Operator
Order data from Shopify, Magento and BigCommerce inside the ticket with refund, discount and cancel actions and Shopify-backed insights mid-call means the second login disappears, and a developer portal with a changelog shows a real API. I found no public information on webhooks, SSO, documented rate limits or provisioning, and the API terms push the cost of mandatory updates onto the builder, which tempers the picture. 3 4 6
The Integrator
A public developer portal with a changelog exists, and the Shopify, Magento and BigCommerce integrations are named and do real work inside the ticket — refunds, discounts and order creation with Shopify data on screen during calls. We found no public information on webhooks, documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning, a sandbox or SSO, and the API licence is revocable with mandatory updates implemented at the developer's own cost. 3 4 6
The Skeptic
The ecommerce depth is genuine: 65+ named integrations, Shopify, Magento and BigCommerce order data inside the ticket, refunds and discounts issued without leaving the helpdesk, order creation during a call, and a public developer portal with a changelog. But I found no public information on webhooks, single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox, and the licence grants only a limited, revocable API licence whose updates are mandatory and implemented at the developer's own cost — depth where the vendor sells, thin where a builder needs guarantees. 2 3 6
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.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — support tooling, analytics, AI features — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, 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 captured pages state nothing about where the ticket archive is hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or which subprocessors touch the data. For a buyer with EU exposure I found no public information on any of it, and there is nothing here a data protection officer could sign off on. 6
The Agent Advocate
The contracting entity is Gorgias Inc. and I found no public information on data residency, an EU entity, or the subprocessor list on any captured page. A ticket archive is other people's personal data, and for where it lives and who can read it, that silence decides it. 1 6
The Data Protection Officer
Every attribute I weigh came back unknown: we found no public information on where the ticket archive is hosted, the jurisdiction of the contracting entity, the subprocessors who touch it, or whether Gorgias support can open a customer's instance. Without a published DPA, a data-residency statement or a subprocessor list, an operator cannot even begin an assessment of this archive. 1 6
The Shop Operator
We found no public information on where the ticket archive is hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or any subprocessor — for shopper data that is disqualifying as it stands. The only legal page captured covers API licensing and gives no residence statement or safeguard of any kind. 6
The Integrator
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where the ticket archive is hosted, or which subprocessors touch it — the homepage and the legal terms captured name none of these. Nothing in the captured material evidences EU hosting, an EU entity or a published subprocessor list. 1 6
The Skeptic
Every attribute a sovereignty review needs — contracting entity jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location, subprocessors — is unknown, and the captured pages never state where the ticket archive lives, who the contracting entity is, or who else touches the data. With hosting unstated and no subprocessor information anywhere in the captures, this lands at the lowest level for this buyer. 1 6
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 per-agent headline exists, but the tier where the needed channel or SLA feature begins is unstated, or light-agent and contact limits are not mentioned.
5 — Per-agent prices public for the main tiers with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed capability (telephony, messengers, SLA policies) sits in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with per-agent maths, 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
No per-agent price, tier or billing period appears on any captured page — commercial terms look like a demo conversation plus a free signup. The only price-adjacent statements are that the Help Center is included with all plans at no extra cost and that an Automation Add-On exists without a figure, so I could not compute an annual invoice for my agent count from these pages. 1 5
The Agent Advocate
The only pricing facts I found are a free signup, the Help Center included in all plans at no extra cost, and a voice page advertising "no extra tools or hidden fees" without stating a price. I found no public information on per-agent prices, tier boundaries, billing periods or what the Automation Add-On costs, so no support lead could compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Plans are referenced — a free sign-up, and a help centre included with all plans at no extra cost — but we found no public price figures for any tier, and the Automation Add-On is named without a number. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their agent count from these pages; billing period, minimum term and VAT treatment are not in evidence. 1 4 5
The Shop Operator
The pages show a free signup, a demo button, and a note that the Help Center comes with all plans at no extra cost, but I found no public information on any per-agent price, tier boundaries, billing period, VAT treatment, or what the automation add-on costs. I cannot compute a real annual invoice for my agent count from what is published here. 1 5
The Integrator
No price figure appears in the captured pages — only a free signup, a demo booking link, and statements that the help centre is included in all plans at no extra cost and that voice involves "no extra tools or hidden fees". The Automation Add-On is named without a price, so an annual invoice for a given agent count and channel selection cannot be computed from the public information we could see. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
Computing an annual invoice from these captures is impossible: we found no public information on per-agent prices, tier costs, billing periods or VAT treatment, and the automation add-on, SMS and Voice products appear with no price attached. The only price-adjacent statements captured are a free sign-up, a demo prompt, and a note that the help centre is included with all plans at no extra cost — and I found no public information on which tier gates channels or SLA capabilities. 1 5
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Gorgias
Is Gorgias European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Gorgias is based.
Where does Gorgias store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Gorgias have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Gorgias?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Zendesk (3.5/5), Intercom (3.5/5) and HubSpot Service Hub (3/5) highest among the other 28 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: Gorgias alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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 compliance on the pages we read (gorgias.com, gorgias.com/product/macros, gorgias.com/product/email, gorgias.com/products/voice, gorgias.com/product/help-center, gorgias.com/legal/api-license-and-terms-of-use). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 16 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.gorgias.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap www.gorgias.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.gorgias.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.gorgias.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.gorgias.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.gorgias.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →