Customer Service & Helpdesk
Hiver
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Hiver · hiverhq.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.
Hiver at a glance
- Vendor
- Hiver
- 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 Hiver 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Hiver is a customer service and helpdesk product sold in two editions, Hiver Omni and Hiver in Gmail; the vendor states that more than 10,000 teams use it globally. 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
Hiver is a customer service and helpdesk product sold in two editions, Hiver Omni and Hiver in Gmail; the vendor states that more than 10,000 teams use it globally. The scoring favours the channel and knowledge layers: omnichannel runs 4-6, crediting email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp named as managed from one workspace, and knowledge and self-service also runs 4-6 — the support lead scored 6 for the claimed link between resolved conversations and new articles, while judges who wanted deflection reported as a number scored lower. Ticketing core runs 2-3: modules are named, but the judges found no public information on routing rules, SLA timers, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies. Customer data protection and sovereignty sit at 0-1, with no public information on retention, deletion, audit logging, a data processing agreement, hosting location or subprocessors. Integrations span 2-4. Persona-weighted verdicts ranged from 0.9 to 3.8, and we found no public prices — the editions are named without figures.
Speaks for it
- Omnichannel scores 4-6, with email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp named as managed from one workspace in Hiver Omni.
- Knowledge and self-service scores 4-6, with AI claimed to turn resolved conversations into help centre articles and surface knowledge gaps.
- Asana, Jira request linking and Slack threads inside the product are named integrations.
- A Gmail-native edition is described, with shared inboxes and AI handled without leaving Gmail.
Held against it
- Ticketing core scores 2-3, and we found no public information on routing rules, SLA timers, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies.
- Customer data protection scores 0-1, and we found no public information on retention periods, deletion paths, audit logging or a signable data processing agreement.
- Sovereignty scores 0-1, and we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity or subprocessors.
- Integrations scores 2-4, and we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, SSO or any named CRM or shop system.
- We found no public prices — the two editions are named without per-agent figures, billing period or VAT treatment.
Best for
- You want email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp handled in one workspace and can confirm shared customer history with the vendor before buying.
- Your support team works inside Gmail and wants shared inboxes and AI without leaving it.
- You want a help centre that builds and refreshes articles from resolved conversations and will measure deflection against your own ticket counts.
Avoid if
- You need public evidence of routing rules, SLA timers, escalation chains and full-text search across ticket bodies before committing to a queue engine.
- Your purchase requires a data-protection review of retention periods, deletion paths, audit logging and a signable data processing agreement.
- You must wire the helpdesk into a named CRM or shop system through a documented API, webhooks or SSO.
- You must establish where the ticket archive is hosted and which subprocessors touch it before signing — the bench found nothing public to weigh.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Ticketing, queues & SLA | 1.5 of 5 |
| Channels in one queue | 3 of 5 |
| Knowledge base & deflection | 2 of 5 |
| Customer data protection | 0 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 1.5 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
The captured page lists Ticketing, Automation and Analytics among the product modules and describes shared inboxes for handling complex requests, which is basic ticketing territory. We found no public information on routing rules, SLA timers or breach warnings, escalation chains, or search across ticket bodies — the things my twelve agents and I live or die by. Until those are on a page, this is a module name, not an SLA tool. 1
The Agent Advocate
The captured page names ticketing, automation and analytics modules and shared inboxes in Gmail, but nothing in it shows how work is routed, prioritised, escalated or measured. We found no public information on SLA timers, macros, merge and split, reporting on first-response time, or full-text search — and search that finds the old thread is what I judge an engine by. A module name is not a queue system. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A ticketing engine is named alongside automation and analytics modules, and the Gmail edition is described as shared inboxes inside Gmail, which sits close to a labelled mailbox. We found no public information on assignment, a status model, routing rules, SLA timers, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies — and no information on an audit trail of who changed what. 1
The Shop Operator
Shared inboxes, a named ticketing module and an automation module are confirmed, but I found no public information on rules-based routing, SLA timers with breach warnings, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies — nothing here shows an agent finding the one parcel ticket they need among ten thousand. I can only credit a basic ticket model with assignment implied and everything else undescribed. 1
The Integrator
The capture names ticketing and automation modules over shared inboxes, but beyond those labels it gives nothing on routing rules, SLA timers, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies. We found no public information on SLA handling at all, so I can credit little beyond basic ticketing with manual routing. 1
The Skeptic
The product footprint lists ticketing and automation modules, but the page shows only module names — we found no public information on routing rules, priorities, SLA timers, escalation chains, or search across ticket bodies. A named ticketing module with no demonstrated engine sits just above the floor. 1
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, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp are all named as channels managed from one workspace, and voice plus WhatsApp in the same queue is real breadth. We found no public information on a customer portal where requesters see their own tickets, on consent handling for WhatsApp, or on call logging for voice, so the breadth is claimed without the harder proof points. 1
The Agent Advocate
The page lists email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp managed from one workspace, a broader channel list than most. But I judge what lands in one queue with one history, and we found no public information on shared customer history across channels, voice call logging, WhatsApp consent handling, or a portal where a requester sees their own tickets. I am scoring the claim of one workspace, not proof of it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor states email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp are managed "from one workspace", which is more than a second channel living in its own inbox. We found no public information on shared history when a customer switches channel, WhatsApp consent handling, call logging or a requester portal, so breadth is asserted on the marketing page rather than evidenced. 1
The Shop Operator
Email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp are all named as managed from one workspace in Hiver Omni, and WhatsApp landing with the rest is exactly the claim I test rather than a logo wall. I found no public information on WhatsApp consent handling, call logging for telephony, or a customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets, and no evidence the history follows a customer who switches channel mid-issue. 1
The Integrator
Email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp are all quoted as managed from one workspace, which is broad channel coverage, but we found no public information on a requester portal where customers see their own tickets, on WhatsApp consent handling, or on call logging. A channel list on a homepage is not proof of one shared history, so this sits between the middle and upper anchors. 1
The Skeptic
The page claims email, chat, Slack, voice, SMS and WhatsApp managed from one workspace, which is more than most logo-walls; the omnichannel inbox claim is explicit. But we found no public information on whether these channels share one customer history, on WhatsApp consent handling, or on a customer portal, so I credit one queue at best, not the connected history the customer would need. 1
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 help centre is a named product module, with AI claimed to turn resolved conversations into new articles, surface knowledge gaps and keep content current — a working link between resolved tickets and knowledge, and the copilot's answer-finding supports the agent side. We found no public information on deflection reported as a number, multilingual articles, review dates, or suggestions shown to customers before they submit, and AI-powered claims on a single page still have to be checked against the queue. 1
The Agent Advocate
The AI help centre claim is genuinely interesting — turning resolved conversations into articles and surfacing knowledge gaps points toward knowledge managed as an asset rather than a static article list. But we found no public information on draft and publish workflow, versioning, article suggestions in the reply, review dates, or deflection reported as a number the team can act on. Article upkeep by AI is a promise; the editorial controls are not shown. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A help centre is claimed where AI turns resolved conversations into articles and surfaces knowledge gaps — detecting gaps from the ticket archive is the right instinct, and the copilot is said to find answers for agents. We found no public information on editorial workflow, versioning, review dates, multilingual content, suggestions before a customer submits or deflection reporting, so the knowledge asset looks maintained by AI and managed by nobody in evidence. 1
The Shop Operator
A help centre exists and the AI turns resolved conversations into articles while surfacing knowledge gaps, which is a genuine link between tickets and knowledge rather than a static article list. But I found no public information on categories, draft-and-publish workflow, multilingual articles or deflection reported as a number — and for me deflection only counts if the December ticket count actually falls. 1
The Integrator
The AI Help Center is described as turning resolved conversations into articles, surfacing knowledge gaps and keeping content current — genuine deflection intent beyond a static article list. We found no public information on editorial workflow, versioning, multilingual content, suggestions to customers before they submit, or deflection reporting. 1
The Skeptic
A help centre is evidenced, with AI claimed to turn resolved conversations into articles and surface knowledge gaps — the maintenance and the gap-spotting are claimed, in marketing language. We found no public information on searchability, categories, draft-and-publish workflow, article suggestions to customers before they submit, or deflection reporting, so the editorial machinery is entirely unevidenced. 1
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 captured page is silent here: we found no public information on retention, deletion paths, agent roles or queue-level visibility, audit logs, or a signable data processing agreement. A ticket archive is personal data written by the data subject, and with nothing on any of it to evaluate, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Agent Advocate
A ticket archive is personal data written by the data subject, and on this the captured pages say nothing: we found no public information on retention periods, deletion paths, agent roles or queue-level visibility, a data processing agreement, attachment handling, or any audit of who opened which ticket. That silence lands at the bottom of what I can evidence. There is nothing here a data-protection officer could sign. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on retention periods, a deletion path for a requester's data, agent roles or queue-level visibility, an audit log of who opened which ticket, redaction, a signable data processing agreement, subprocessors, or whether the vendor's own support can open a customer's ticket. A ticket archive is years of personal data the customers typed themselves, including the things they should not have, and on this evidence none of the machinery that governs it is visible. 1
The Shop Operator
I found no public information on retention periods, a deletion path for a requester's data, agent roles or queue-level visibility, an audit log, or a signable data-processing agreement. A ticket archive is personal data written by the customer, and there is nothing captured here I could hand to our data-protection officer. 1
The Integrator
We found no public information on retention periods, a deletion path, agent roles or queue-level visibility, a signable DPA, or audit logging — nothing on this criterion is evidenced anywhere in the capture. A ticket archive is personal data, and an entirely silent page scores at the bottom by the published definitions. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on retention periods, deletion of a requester's data, agent roles or queue-level visibility, a signable DPA, attachment handling, or audit logging — the captured page is silent on every one. A ticket archive is personal data written by the data subject, and there is nothing here for a buyer to evaluate. 1
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
The integrations named on the captured page are Asana, Jira and Slack, while CRMs, ecommerce platforms and data warehouses appear only as generic categories the AI works across — no named CRM, shop or identity system. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, SSO or rate limits, so I cannot credit more than a handful of native connections. 1
The Agent Advocate
Named integrations exist — Asana, Jira request linking, Slack threads inside the product — and the AI agents are said to act across CRMs, ecommerce platforms, data warehouses and spreadsheets. But we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, rate limits or a sandbox, so a buyer building on this is buying a promise. The systems are named; the wiring is not shown. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Asana, Jira and Slack appear by name, and the AI agents are said to work across CRM, ecommerce, warehouse and spreadsheet systems, which is more than nothing. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, SSO, SCIM or rate limits, so customer context still appears to arrive by hand rather than by pipe. 1
The Shop Operator
Asana, Jira linking and Slack threads inside the product are named, and the AI Agents are described as working across CRMs, ecommerce platforms and internal tools with account health pulled from CRM data, calls and product usage — order context reaching the agent without a second login is at least claimed. But I found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, SSO, SCIM or rate limits, which is what a shop needs to wire the order system properly. 1
The Integrator
Asana, Jira and Slack are named, and AI Agents are said to work across CRMs and ecommerce platforms without a single CRM or shop system being named. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, rate limits, SCIM provisioning, SSO or a sandbox — for someone who has to wire this into a CRM, a shop and an identity provider, this is labels rather than interfaces. 1
The Skeptic
Named links appear — an Asana integration, Jira request linking, Slack threads inside the product — alongside a claim that AI works across CRMs, ecommerce platforms and data warehouses, though no specific CRM or shop system is named anywhere on the page. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, SSO, or rate limits, so I score the handful of native collaboration links only. 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
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, subprocessors, or whether vendor support can read customer data. Where the ticket archive lives is not a nice-to-have for this buyer, and there is nothing on any of it to weigh. 1
The Agent Advocate
The record carries no sovereignty attributes: we found no public information on where the ticket archive is hosted, which entity a European buyer would contract with, or which subprocessors touch the data. Nothing names a data-centre provider or a safeguard for any non-EU processing, including support and analytics tooling. Where the archive lives is unstated in what was captured, and that is itself the finding. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The sovereignty record is empty: we found no public information on hosting region, the contracting entity, a subprocessor list, certification, or any non-EU processing and its legal basis. For an archive of customers' own words, the absence of any stated boundary around the vendor's support access is itself the finding. 1
The Shop Operator
No sovereignty attributes are on record: I found no public information on where the ticket archive is hosted, which entity we would contract with, which subprocessors touch it, or whether vendor support can read customer instances. For an EU shop's ticket archive, nothing here lets me place the data or the legal chain at all. 1
The Integrator
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, a subprocessor list, or whether vendor support can read customer data. I have nothing I could verify about where the ticket archive would live or who touches it. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured page states nothing on hosting location, contracting entity, or subprocessors, and vendor support access to customer data is not addressed. For a buyer weighing EU custody of the ticket archive, there is no public information to weigh. 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 captured page names two editions, Hiver Omni and Hiver in Gmail, with no figures of any kind; we found no public information on per-agent prices, billing period, or where channels and AI features sit by tier. I cannot begin to compute an annual invoice for my agent count from what is captured. 1
The Agent Advocate
The captured pages show no prices at all — no per-agent figure, no billing period, no VAT treatment, no minimum term, and no indication of which edition carries voice, WhatsApp or the AI modules. A support lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from this; only the names Hiver Omni and Hiver in Gmail are public. We found no public pricing information in what was captured. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Two edition names — Hiver Omni and Hiver in Gmail — and no numbers anywhere in the captured material: we found no public information on per-agent prices, tier boundaries, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment. A support lead cannot even begin to compute the annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Shop Operator
I found no public pricing in the captured material — no per-agent figures, no tier boundaries, no billing period, VAT treatment or channel add-ons. A support lead could not compute even a rough annual invoice for their agent count from what is public here. 1
The Integrator
Two editions, Hiver Omni and Hiver in Gmail, are presented with no prices attached. We found no public information on per-agent pricing, billing period, add-on pricing or VAT treatment, so a support lead cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from public pages. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public prices at all: the two editions, Hiver Omni and Hiver in Gmail, are named with no per-agent figure, billing period, VAT treatment, or add-on pricing. Nothing shows which edition carries voice, WhatsApp, or the AI modules, and a support lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from this page. 1
Questions about Hiver
Is Hiver European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Hiver is based.
Where does Hiver store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Hiver have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Hiver?
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: Hiver 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 pricing on the pages we read (hiverhq.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 3 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
- 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 (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page hiverhq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →