Customer Service & Helpdesk
HelpDesk
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Text (formerly LiveChat Software S.A.) · helpdesk.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.
HelpDesk at a glance
- Vendor
- Text (formerly LiveChat Software S.A.)
- 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
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates HelpDesk 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. HelpDesk, a customer service and helpdesk product from Text (formerly LiveChat Software S.A.), scores highest on knowledge and self-service and on integrations, both at 6-7. 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
HelpDesk, a customer service and helpdesk product from Text (formerly LiveChat Software S.A.), scores highest on knowledge and self-service and on integrations, both at 6-7. Judges credit a help centre searchable from the ticket interface, tracked article usage and resolution success, an AI Agent claimed to resolve up to 73% of routine questions in chat before ticket creation, and workflows reaching Shopify, Salesforce and HubSpot through webhooks and a documented API. Ticketing core lands at 4-6: workflows automate assignment, prioritisation and escalation, four priority levels ship in all plans, but we found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, or first-response and resolution reporting. Sovereignty scores lowest at 0-2 and customer data protection is also weak at 2-3: no sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement, retention periods, or a deletion path for requesters' data. No genuine disagreements emerged; the 0-2 spread on sovereignty reflects how hard judges weigh the same silence rather than any conflicting evidence. Pricing appears only as a "Limited free version".
Speaks for it
- Workflows automate ticket creation, assignment, prioritisation and escalation, with four priority levels — Urgent, High, Medium, Low — available in all plans.
- Email, live chat, Messenger and SMS land in one inbox, with contact-form and chatbot tickets feeding the same dashboard.
- Help centre articles are searchable from the ticket interface, with article usage and resolution success tracked.
- An AI Agent is claimed to resolve up to 73% of routine questions in chat before ticket creation.
- A documented API, webhooks through workflows, and a marketplace with a developer platform support apps that sit inside ticket details.
Held against it
- We found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, business-hours policies, or first-response and resolution reporting by agent or queue.
- We found no public information on a data processing agreement, a stated retention period, or an executable deletion path for a requester's data.
- No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, or a subprocessor list.
- We found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits, or a sandbox.
- We found no public information on draft-and-publish editorial workflow, review dates, or multilingual articles in the help centre.
Best for
- You need one inbox for email, live chat, Messenger and SMS, with contact-form and chatbot tickets on the same dashboard.
- You want to deflect routine questions before they become tickets, using an AI agent in chat and help centre articles searchable from the ticket view.
- You build around the API: no-code workflows to Shopify, Salesforce and HubSpot, webhooks to anything else, and a marketplace for third-party apps.
- You want automated assignment, prioritisation and escalation with four priority levels in all plans.
Avoid if
- You must know where the ticket archive is hosted, which entity you contract with, and which subprocessors touch the data before signing.
- You need a signable data processing agreement, a stated retention period, and an executable deletion path documented in advance.
- You manage to SLA targets and need timers, breach warnings, and first-response and resolution reporting by agent and queue.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Ticketing, queues & SLA | 2 of 5 |
| Channels in one queue | 2.5 of 5 |
| Knowledge base & deflection | 3 of 5 |
| Customer data protection | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
Workflows automate ticket creation, assignment, prioritisation and escalation, four priority levels ship in all plans, and agents get filters, saved views, bulk actions and canned responses. But the captured pages mention SLA policies only alongside ticket priorities — we found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, or first-response and resolution reporting by agent and queue, which is exactly what I would need to take to a quarterly review. 1 2 3
The Agent Advocate
Priorities in every plan, saved views, filters, bulk actions on all views, and workflows that automate assignment, prioritisation and escalation — the engine is real. But I found no public information on SLA timers with breach warnings, business-hours policies, whether search covers ticket bodies, or merge, split and per-agent resolution reporting, which is the difference between tracking work and managing it. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Statuses, four priority levels, tags, custom fields, saved views with a search bar and bulk actions are documented, and automation is stated to cover assignment, prioritisation and escalation with SLA policies tied to priorities. I found no public information on SLA timers with breach warnings, business-hours policies, or reporting on first-response and resolution times by agent and queue. 1 2 3
The Shop Operator
Routing and prioritisation are real: workflows automate "ticket creation, assignment, prioritization, escalation", four priority levels exist in all plans, and the dashboard carries views, filters, saved views and bulk actions. But the SLA mention is a single sentence about priorities, and I found no public information on SLA timers with breach warnings, business-hours policies, or reporting on first-response and resolution time by agent and queue. 1 2 3 5
The Integrator
Workflows automate ticket creation, assignment, prioritization and escalation, four priority levels exist in all plans, and there is a status model with saved views and bulk actions — that is rules-based routing, not a shared mailbox. The SLA material is one sentence about policies working with priorities: I found no public information on timers, breach warnings, business-hours policies, or first-response and resolution reporting, and nothing says the search bar covers ticket bodies. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The captured pages show tickets with statuses, four priority levels available in all plans, tags, custom fields, saved views, filters and bulk actions, plus automated assignment and escalation through workflows. SLA appears only as a sentence that priorities "will work perfectly" with an SLA policy — we found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, business-hours policies, or first-response and resolution reporting by agent or queue, and the search bar's coverage of ticket bodies is unstated. That sits between a bare status model and one with timers and breach warnings. 1 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, live chat, Messenger and SMS are stated to land in one inbox, and contact forms, OpenWidget and Facebook also feed tickets into the queue. We found no public information on telephony with call logging, a customer portal where requesters see their own tickets, or consent handling for messengers. 1 4 8
The Agent Advocate
Email from any provider, contact forms, LiveChat chat, Messenger and SMS are all claimed as one inbox, and ChatBot tickets land on the main dashboard with their source marked. I found no public information on telephony, a portal where requesters see their own tickets, or consent handling for messengers, so this is one inbox without evidence of one shared history. 1 4 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Email, live chat, Messenger and SMS are stated to arrive in one inbox, and contact forms, OpenWidget and chatbot conversations land on the same dashboard as tickets. I found no public information on telephony, on a portal where requesters see their own tickets, or on consent handling for the messenger channels — and consent handling is not a detail to me. 1 4 7 8
The Shop Operator
Email, live chat, Messenger and SMS land in one inbox, contact forms from WordPress, Webflow and OpenWidget convert into tickets, and a chat-originated ticket shows its source in the ticket details — that is the one-queue picture I need. I found no public information on telephony with call logging, on a customer portal where requesters see their own tickets, or on consent handling for messengers, and the channel list names Messenger and SMS but not WhatsApp. 1 4 7 8
The Integrator
Email, live chat, Messenger and SMS are stated to land in one inbox, and chatbot and contact-form tickets appear on the same dashboard with the same default priority as email tickets. I found no public information on telephony with call logging, on consent handling for messengers, or on a portal where a requester sees their own tickets. 1 2 4 7
The Skeptic
The homepage claims email, live chat, Messenger and SMS "in one inbox", and email from any provider, contact forms, OpenWidget and Webflow forms all convert into tickets, so the one-queue claim holds for those channels. We found no public information on telephony, on consent handling for Messenger, or on a portal where a requester sees their own tickets, and the "one inbox" phrase is the only support that history follows a customer across channels. 1 4 2
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 branded help centre is searchable from inside the ticket interface, articles can be pasted into replies, AI can generate articles and titles, article usage and resolution success are tracked, and an AI agent is claimed to resolve up to 73% of routine chats before a ticket exists. We found no public information on editorial workflow with draft and publish states, multilingual articles or review dates, and that 73% is a marketing claim rather than a deflection report my team could act on. 1 6 7
The Agent Advocate
A searchable help centre with article search inside the ticket view, tracking of article usage and resolution success, AI-generated articles, and an AI agent claimed to resolve up to 73% of routine chat questions before ticket creation. I found no public information on draft and publish workflow, review dates, multilingual articles, or deflection reported as a number the team can act on. 1 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Deflection is treated as a product goal: AI-generated articles, titles and tags, reply suggestions drafted from the help centre, article usage and resolution-success tracking, and a stated claim that the AI agent resolves up to 73% of routine chats before a ticket exists. I found no public information on multilingual articles, review dates flagging stale content, or article suggestions shown to customers before they submit. 1 6 7
The Shop Operator
Deflection is treated as a number, which is what I look for: the AI Agent is claimed to resolve up to 73% of routine questions before a ticket exists, article usage and resolution success are tracked, and agents can pull help centre articles from inside the ticket interface. The help centre comes as a separate KnowledgeBase product with AI article generation and custom branding, but I found no public information on draft/publish editorial workflow, versioning, review dates for stale content, or multilingual articles. 1 6 7
The Integrator
Deflection is taken seriously: an AI Agent stated to resolve up to 73% of routine questions in chat before a ticket exists, agents can search and view help center articles from the ticket interface, and article usage and resolution success are tracked. I found no public information on editorial workflow — draft and publish states, versioning, approval, review dates — nor on multilingual articles or deflection reported as an actionable number. 1 6 7
The Skeptic
Help-centre functionality arrives as an integration with a sibling product, KnowledgeBase, rather than something evidenced as bundled with the ticketing product: there is article search inside the ticket interface, link-sharing into replies, reply suggestions drafted from help centre content, tracking of article usage and resolution success, and an AI Agent claiming to resolve up to 73% of routine questions in chat before a ticket is created. We found no public information on draft-and-publish editorial workflow, multilingual articles, review dates flagging stale content, or a deflection figure tied to ticket volume. 6 1 7 8
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
Encryption, secure connections, role-based access and audit logs are listed as included, and users are advised to strip personal information before using the AI email generator. We found no public information on a signable data processing agreement, a stated retention period, or an executable deletion path for a requester's data, so I could not evidence a subject access request from these pages. 1 5
The Agent Advocate
Role-based access and audit logs are listed as included features, and the email generator pages tell users to strip personal information before generating — advice, not a control. I found no public information on a DPA, retention periods, deletion of a requester's data, attachment handling or redaction, and a ticket archive is personal data end to end. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer
Encryption, secure connections, role-based access and audit logs are named in the security summary, and the advice to always remove personal information before generating an email tells me the toolmaker knows what flows through the archive. I found no public information on a data processing agreement, a stated retention period, an executable deletion path, redaction, subject-rights support, or whether the vendor's own staff can open a customer ticket. For years of self-written personal data, that silence is the finding. 1 5
The Shop Operator
The captured pages evidence encryption, secure connections, role-based access and audit logs, which is a floor but not a promise I could take to a data-protection review. I found no public information on a data processing agreement, stated retention periods, an executable deletion path for a requester's data, attachment handling, or support for access and erasure requests. 1 5
The Integrator
Role-based access, encryption and audit logs are listed as included features, and per-app settings require an admin role, which is more than a free-for-all mailbox. But I found no published DPA, no stated retention period, no executable deletion path for a requester's data, and no information on attachments, subject-rights support, redaction or pseudonymisation. 1 5 9
The Skeptic
The security list names encryption, secure connections, role-based access, anti-spam and audit logs, and the AI generator page advises users to remove personal information before generating an email. We found no public information on a DPA, retention periods, deletion of a requester's data, attachment handling, pseudonymisation, what the audit log records, or vendor support access to customer instances — the coarse-roles picture with everything else unaddressed. 1 5
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
Salesforce, HubSpot, Shopify and WooCommerce are named alongside WordPress, Webflow, Klaviyo, Zapier and Facebook, the API documentation is publicly reachable, workflows connect to other systems via webhooks, and there is a marketplace with a developer platform and ticket-details apps. We found no public information on SSO, documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning or customer context from other systems shown inside the ticket. 1 5 8 9
The Agent Advocate
Named CRM and shop integrations including Salesforce, HubSpot, Shopify and WooCommerce, a documented API, webhooks through workflows, Zapier, and a real app framework with a Marketplace, Developer Platform and apps that sit inside ticket details. I found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits, a sandbox, or whether the maintained integrations are bidirectional. 1 5 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Named CRM and shop integrations, a documented API, webhooks and no-code workflows, plus a marketplace with a developer platform, private apps and three app types give this real depth for a buyer building around it. I found no public information on documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning, a sandbox, or customer context from other systems shown inside the ticket. 1 8 9
The Shop Operator
Shop and CRM names are present — Shopify, WooCommerce, Salesforce, HubSpot — alongside webhooks, a documented API with a developers portal, a marketplace, and a developer platform that supports apps inside the ticket details view. What I actually buy this for, order context from the shop shown inside the ticket without a second login, is not evidenced, and I found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox. 1 5 8 9
The Integrator
This is the area closest to what I need to wire up: an API documentation link lives right in the product's API tab, workflows reach Shopify, Salesforce and HubSpot through predefined actions or anything else via webhooks and the API, and there is a genuine Developer Platform with a Marketplace, private apps and in-ticket ticket-details apps. But I found no public information on documented rate limits, webhook retry behaviour, SCIM provisioning, SSO, a sandbox, or an API versioning and deprecation policy — exactly the operational detail I need before committing — and bidirectionality of the named integrations is unstated. 1 5 8 9
The Skeptic
Named integrations cover Salesforce, HubSpot, Shopify, WooCommerce, Klaviyo and more, workflows reach anything through webhooks and the API, and the marketplace pages document a developer platform with private apps and three app types including in-ticket "ticket details" apps — a genuine app framework rather than a logo wall. We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits, a sandbox, or whether the named integrations are bidirectional. 8 9 1
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
We found no public information on where the ticket archive is hosted, which entity the contract is signed with, or which subprocessors touch the data; no sovereignty attributes are on record at all. Until something is published I have to treat the archive location as unknown, which for twelve agents' worth of customer tickets is a risk I cannot assess. 1
The Agent Advocate
No sovereignty attributes are on record: I found no public information on where the ticket archive is hosted, the contracting entity, a subprocessor list, or whether vendor support can read customer data. For a buyer who needs to know who touches the archive, that silence is itself a finding. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured material records no sovereignty attributes: nothing on hosting location, the contracting entity, a subprocessor list, or whether the vendor's support can read customer data. An unlocated ticket archive of personal data is an unassessed risk, and the public pages reviewed give me nothing to assess it with. 1
The Shop Operator
The captured pages give no public information on where the ticket archive is hosted, the contracting entity's location, the data-centre provider, the subprocessor list, or whether vendor support can read customer data — nothing on this dimension can be verified at all. A ticket archive is customer personal data, so I treat that silence as a real gap rather than a neutral one. 1
The Integrator
The sovereignty attributes came back empty and I found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity jurisdiction, a subprocessor list, certifications, or whether vendor support can read customer data. A ticket archive full of personal data with silence on every one of those questions leaves me near the bottom of the range. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, a subprocessor list, or whether vendor support can read customer data in any captured page. With hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed, there is nothing here for a buyer weighing where the ticket archive lives. 1
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
The only pricing-related facts captured are a 'limited free version' and free migration with costs covered where possible; we found no public information on per-agent prices, tiers, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment. I cannot compute the annual invoice for twelve agents from anything published here. 1 5
The Agent Advocate
The only pricing-adjacent facts are a "Limited free version — Learn more" link and free migration; no per-agent price, tier structure, billing period or VAT treatment appears in the captured pages. A support lead cannot compute the annual invoice for their agent count from this. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer
The only pricing statement captured is that a limited free version exists; I found no per-agent prices, tier structure, billing period or add-on pricing on the public pages. A support lead cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from what is published. 5
The Shop Operator
The only pricing information is that a limited free version exists; I found no public per-agent prices, tier definitions, billing periods, minimum terms, VAT treatment or add-on pricing. No support lead could compute an annual invoice for their agent count from these pages. 5
The Integrator
The only pricing information in the captured pages is a "Limited free version" and a free AI email generator requiring no signup. No per-agent price, tier table, billing period, add-on pricing or VAT treatment appears, so a support lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice. 5
The Skeptic
The only price-adjacent facts are a "limited free version" and that priority levels sit in all plans; we found no public per-agent price, no tier names with numbers, no billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment, and nothing on where SLA policies or the AI features begin per tier or whether they are metered. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 5 2
Questions about HelpDesk
Is HelpDesk European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where HelpDesk is based.
Where does HelpDesk store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does HelpDesk have a free plan?
Yes. HelpDesk has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to HelpDesk?
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: HelpDesk 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.
- 18 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
- 18 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 legal 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
- 1 pricing 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.helpdesk.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →