Customer Service & Helpdesk
Kayako
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Kayako Ltd · kayako.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.
Kayako at a glance
- Vendor
- Kayako Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Kayako 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Kayako is an AI help desk platform, strongest on knowledge and self-service where scores run 8 to 9: articles are drafted from resolved tickets with one-click publish, translation is on demand, per-article health scores and stale-content flags mark what needs review, and analytics name which articles prevent tickets. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Kayako is an AI help desk platform, strongest on knowledge and self-service where scores run 8 to 9: articles are drafted from resolved tickets with one-click publish, translation is on demand, per-article health scores and stale-content flags mark what needs review, and analytics name which articles prevent tickets. It is weakest on sovereignty, 0 to 2: the platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas; personal data may be stored and processed in the European Economic Area, the United States or any other country where the company or its contractors maintain facilities; and the subprocessor list is available only on request, with standard contractual clauses and Data Privacy Framework certification as the stated transfer safeguards. Customer data protection sits at 3 to 4, retention stated only as "as long as reasonably necessary". No substantial disagreements emerged, though pricing transparency spans 4 to 6, as judges weighed the public "$79/agent/mo" and "$1 per AI resolution" against captured pages giving different figures for Kayako One — "Custom pricing for your team" on one page, "$1 per ticket" on another.
Speaks for it
- AI drafts knowledge articles from resolved tickets with one-click publish, and analytics name which articles prevent tickets.
- Routing considers skills, current workload and language, predicts priority and fast-tracks VIP customers, with SLA health and resolution metrics tracked in real time.
- Email, live chat, web forms, voice, SMS/WhatsApp, social media and API are described as flowing into one unified inbox with a single customer timeline.
- Named connectors for Salesforce, Shopify, Stripe and Chargebee feed one customer timeline, with all integrations and API access included and no per-connector fees.
- Public unit prices are stated — "$79/agent/mo" for Kayako One with "$1 per AI resolution" — plus semantic search and an AI chat widget answering from the knowledge base around the clock.
Held against it
- The platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, and personal data may be stored in the European Economic Area, the United States or any other country where the company or its contractors maintain facilities.
- The subprocessor list is available only on request, and retention is stated as "as long as reasonably necessary" with no stated period.
- The captured pages give different figures for Kayako One — "$79/agent/mo" on one page, "Custom pricing for your team" on another, "$1 per ticket" on a third — and we found no public information on VAT treatment or minimum term.
- We found no public information on SLA timers with breach warnings, business-hours policies, macros, merge and split, or search across ticket bodies.
- We found no public information on call logging for the voice channel, WhatsApp consent handling, a requester-facing ticket portal, or a published signable data processing agreement.
Best for
- You want AI-driven self-service and knowledge deflection at the centre of your support operation — scores run 8 to 9, the product's strongest area.
- You run an e-commerce or subscription business on Shopify, Stripe or Chargebee and want order, payment and subscription context inside every ticket.
- You are consolidating email, chat, social, voice and messengers into one shared queue with the customer's full history carried on each ticket.
- You prefer usage-based AI pricing with integrations and API access included, no per-connector fees and no connection limits.
Avoid if
- You require a European contracting entity or hosting committed to the EEA — the platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, and storage may occur in the United States or any other country where the company or its contractors maintain facilities.
- You must audit the subprocessor list before signing — it is available only on request.
- You need a retention period you can hold the vendor to — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must put a computable annual invoice in front of finance — the captured pages give different figures for Kayako One and we found no public information on billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Ticketing, queues & SLA | 3 of 5 |
| Channels in one queue | 3.5 of 5 |
| Knowledge base & deflection | 4.5 of 5 |
| Customer data protection | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 2.5 of 5 |
Ticketing, queues & SLA
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The engine: how work is routed, prioritised, escalated and measured — and whether an agent can find the ticket they need among ten thousand.
0 — 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
Routing is the strong suit — the AI classifies, predicts priority and routes on skills, current workload and language, backed by a no-code builder to route, assign and escalate, with SLA health, first contact resolution and resolution time tracked in real time. Reporting names agent performance and CSAT but no per-queue breakdown. I found no public information on SLA timers that warn before breach, business-hours-aware SLA policies per queue, macros, merge and split, or ticket search — the things my team leans on daily. 1 3
The Agent Advocate
Routing that reads skills, current workload and language before assigning, priority prediction, an automation builder for route-assign-escalate, and real-time SLA health with first-contact-resolution and resolution-time metrics are all on the ticketing pages. What I found no public information on: search across ticket bodies, macros, merge and split, and SLA timers with breach warnings — the parts that decide the hundredth reply, not the first. 3 1
The Data Protection Officer
AI triage classifies intent, predicts priority and routes on skills, current workload and language with a VIP fast-track, no-code automation covers routing, assignment and escalation, and SLA health plus first-contact resolution, resolution time and agent performance are tracked in real time. We found no public information on business-hours-aware SLA policies per queue or customer, merge and split, or search across ticket bodies, so the engine is described well but not fully evidenced. 1 3
The Shop Operator
Routing is described the way I need it — skills, workload and language with VIP fast-tracking — plus an automation builder that routes, assigns and escalates, and real-time reporting on first contact resolution, resolution time, cost per ticket and SLA health. It sits below the top bands because we found no public information on SLA breach timers or business-hours policies, on macros or merge and split, or on search that lets an agent find one ticket among thousands from its body text. 1 3
The Integrator
AI triage that classifies intent, predicts priority and routes on skills, workload and language, with real-time reporting on SLA health, first-contact resolution and resolution time, is a genuinely capable engine — the workload-aware routing is the strongest part. I found no public information on SLA timers with breach warnings, business-hours policies, macros, merge and split, or any search over ticket bodies, which are the mechanics that separate a working queue from a managed one. 1 3
The Skeptic
Routing is the strong part: skills, workload and language routing with priority prediction, a visual automation builder, and real-time SLA health alongside first-contact-resolution and resolution-time metrics. But I found no public information on SLA timers with breach warnings, business-hours policies per queue or customer, escalation chains, merge and split, a ticket status model, or any search across ticket bodies — SLA health is a dashboard line, not a policy engine. 1 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, web forms, voice, SMS/WhatsApp and social media are all claimed to land in one unified inbox, with the customer's full history on a single timeline so agents stop asking people to repeat themselves. It stops short of the top: I found no public information on call logging for voice, consent handling for the messengers, or a portal where a requester can see their own tickets. 1 3 4
The Agent Advocate
Email, live chat, web forms, voice, SMS/WhatsApp and social are captured into one shared queue, and every ticket is claimed to carry the customer's full history so nobody repeats themselves — that is the part I care about. I found no public information on call logging for the voice channel, consent handling for WhatsApp, or a portal where a requester sees their own tickets. 3 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
Email, live chat, web forms, voice, SMS/WhatsApp, social media and API are all stated to land in one unified inbox with a single customer timeline, and the vendor says agents never ask customers to repeat themselves. Telephony is named as a channel, but we found no public information on call logging, on consent handling for messengers, or on a portal where a requester sees their own tickets, which keeps this below the top band. 1 3 4
The Shop Operator
Email, live chat, web forms, voice, SMS/WhatsApp and social are all described as flowing into one unified inbox with the customer's full history carried on every ticket and agents never switching tools — that is the single queue I want before the Christmas rush. It stops short of the top because we found no public information on call logging for voice, on consent handling for the messengers, or on a portal where a requester can see their own tickets. 1 3 4
The Integrator
Email, live chat, web forms, voice, SMS/WhatsApp and social are all claimed to land in one unified inbox with a single customer timeline, which is the right shape. The captured pages give different lists of supported channels — one shows email, chat and social while another adds voice and SMS/WhatsApp — and I found no public information on call logging, WhatsApp consent handling, or a portal where a requester can see their own tickets. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The pages claim email, live chat, web forms, voice, SMS/WhatsApp and three social networks all land in one unified inbox with a single customer timeline, which is more than logo-counting. I found no public information on call logging for the voice channel, consent handling for WhatsApp, or a requester-facing portal where a customer sees their own tickets. 1 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
This is the deepest evidence in the file: resolved tickets become draft articles with one-click publish, relevant articles surface to agents in-ticket and to customers via the chat widget, articles translate on demand, health scores and stale-content flags mark what needs review, and analytics show which articles actually prevent tickets plus a prioritised list of undocumented topics. The one missing piece at the top: I found no public information on versioned content with an approval step. 3 5 6
The Agent Advocate
Articles drafted from resolved tickets with one-click publish, suggestions to agents in-ticket, intent-based customer search, on-demand translation, stale-content flags with per-article health scores, gap lists built from ticket patterns, and analytics showing exactly which articles prevent tickets. Deflection is even sold as a number, at $1 per AI-deflected question; the one thing I found no public information on is versioned content with an approval step. 6 5 1
The Data Protection Officer
Articles are drafted automatically from resolved tickets with one-click publish, suggestions reach agents inside tickets and customers before they file, every article gets a health score correlated with ticket volume, stale content is flagged, translation into any language is on demand, and analytics name which articles prevent tickets. Gap discovery from topics customers ask about without documentation approaches managed-asset territory; we found no public information on versioned content with an approval chain. 5 6
The Shop Operator
This is the strongest part of the product: semantic search by intent, an AI chat widget answering from the knowledge base around the clock, articles drafted from resolved tickets, staleness flags and per-article health scores, content gaps surfaced as a prioritised to-write list, and analytics showing exactly which articles prevent tickets — deflection as a number my team can act on. Only versioned content with an approval step went unmentioned in the captures. 5 6
The Integrator
This is where the product is most concrete: article drafts generated from resolved tickets with one-click publish, in-ticket article suggestions for agents, on-demand translation into any language, per-article health scores, stale-content flags tied to ticket patterns, content-gap discovery from what customers ask about, and reporting on which articles prevent tickets. That is knowledge managed as an asset rather than merely stored; the one piece I found no public information on is versioned content with an approval workflow. 1 3 5 6
The Skeptic
This is where the evidence is thickest: content gaps identified from unanswered tickets with a prioritised list to write, per-article health scores tied to ticket correlation, stale-content flagging, on-demand translation into any language, article suggestions surfaced to agents in-ticket, and reporting on exactly which articles prevent tickets. What I did not find is versioned content with an approval workflow — the publish step shown is one click on an AI draft. 5 6
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
Role-based access, audit logs, SOC 2 Type II and GDPR are claimed built in from day one, and the privacy policy routes erasure requests to privacy@kayako.com with standard contractual clauses for restricted transfers. Retention is stated only as "as long as reasonably necessary" — no period I can hold anyone to — and the subprocessor list is available only on request. I found no public information on a published signable DPA, queue-level visibility for agents, attachment handling or redaction of ticket content. 1 2
The Agent Advocate
Role-based access, audit logs and SOC 2 Type II are stated as built in from day one, and erasure requests with SCC-backed transfers are documented in the privacy policy. But I found no public information on a signable DPA, a stated retention period — the policy says data is kept only for as long as reasonably necessary — on per-queue retention rules, or on redaction of ticket content; the subprocessor list is available only on request. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Audit logs and role-based access are claimed from day one, but retention is only a principle — data kept as long as reasonably necessary — with no stated period and no executed retention rules, deletion is a privacy request in some circumstances via a contact email, and anonymised data may be reused indefinitely for the vendor's own research or statistics. We found no public information on a signable data processing agreement, attachment handling, redaction of ticket content, or whether the vendor's own support can open customer tickets. 1 2
The Shop Operator
The privacy policy documents erasure requests, a processor role governed by customer contracts, standard contractual clauses and a no-sale statement, and role-based access with audit logs are claimed on the product pages. But the subprocessor list is available only on request, retention is stated only as "as long as reasonably necessary" with no period, and we found no public information on a signable data processing agreement published on the site, retention rules per queue, or redaction of ticket content. 1 2
The Integrator
Role-based access, audit logs and SOC 2 Type II are stated as built in, and the privacy policy sets out erasure on request, standard contractual clauses and DPF certification. Against that, the subprocessor list is available only on request, retention is stated as a principle — "as long as reasonably necessary" — with no stated period, and I found no public information on a published signable DPA, per-queue retention rules, attachment handling, or redaction of ticket content. 1 2
The Skeptic
Subprocessors are only named on request, there is no stated retention period beyond retaining data as long as reasonably necessary, and deletion runs through an email to the privacy address. SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, role-based access and audit logs appear as a compliance badge line, but I found no public information on retention rules per queue or data category, attachment handling, an audit trail of who opened which ticket, or a published signable data processing agreement. 1 2
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, Shopify, Stripe, Slack, Teams, WhatsApp and Zapier with thousands of apps, open APIs, webhooks, developer docs and SSO/SAML, all included with no per-connector fees, plus a unified timeline where agents see orders, subscriptions and billing inside the ticket. I found no public information on documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning or a sandbox, which is where a serious build-out would bite. 1 7 8
The Agent Advocate
Named connectors for Salesforce, Shopify, Stripe and Chargebee with claimed bi-directional sync, customer context from those systems shown inside the ticket on one timeline, plus open APIs, webhooks and developer docs — that is the one-screen setup I want. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox, and the 5,000+ apps figure is presented through the Zapier no-code route rather than as a list of vendor-maintained connectors. 8 7 1
The Data Protection Officer
Named connectors span Salesforce, Shopify, Stripe, Chargebee, Slack, Teams, WhatsApp, Jira, GitHub and more, with claimed bi-directional sync, open APIs, webhooks feeding a unified customer timeline inside the ticket, developer docs, SSO and no per-connector fees. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits, a sandbox, or an API deprecation policy. 1 7 8
The Shop Operator
Shopify order and customer data plus Stripe and Chargebee billing feeding one customer timeline is precisely what my agents need — no second login to answer "where is my parcel" — alongside Salesforce sync, webhooks, open APIs with developer docs, bidirectional connectors and Zapier for the long tail. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox. 1 7 8
The Integrator
Salesforce, Shopify, Stripe and Chargebee are named connectors, bi-directional sync is claimed, developer docs and open APIs exist, API access is included with no connection limits, SSO/SAML is built in, and SingleView pulls customer context from other systems into the ticket — most of what I need to reach a CRM and a shop. What holds it down: I found no public information on documented rate limits, a sandbox, SCIM provisioning, webhook retry behaviour, or API versioning with a deprecation policy, and the webhooks that are documented push backend events into the product rather than delivering ticket events out to my systems. 1 7 8
The Skeptic
Named connectors for Salesforce, Shopify, Stripe, Chargebee and Slack with claimed bi-directional sync, open APIs, webhooks pushing backend events into the unified customer timeline, developer docs, and Zapier behind the 5,000+ apps headline, all with no per-connector fees. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits, a sandbox, or an API versioning and deprecation policy. 7 8
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 Kayako platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, data may be stored in the EEA, the United States or any other country where the company has facilities, and subprocessors are named only on request — with standard contractual clauses and Data Privacy Framework certification as the stated transfer safeguards. For a buyer weighing European sovereignty that is a US contracting entity with hosting uncommitted to Europe, so it sits just above the bottom for the transfer measures alone. 2
The Agent Advocate
The platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, the privacy policy says personal data may be stored and processed in the European Economic Area, the United States or any other country where the company has facilities, and the subprocessor list is available only on request, with Google Analytics on the site. Standard contractual clauses and Data Privacy Framework certification are documented, which is something for transfers, but I found no public information on EU hosting, an EU contracting entity, or a published subprocessor list. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, under US Federal Trade Commission jurisdiction, personal data may be stored in the European Economic Area, the United States or any other country where the company or its contractors maintain facilities, and the subprocessor list is available only on request. Data Privacy Framework certification and standard contractual clauses give transfers a stated legal basis, but we found no public information on EU hosting, an EU contracting entity, or limits on vendor access to the archive. 2
The Shop Operator
The platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, data may be stored and processed in the European Economic Area, the United States or any other country where the company has facilities, and the subprocessor list exists only on request — for a shop holding EU customer data that is a US-contracted chain. Data Privacy Framework certification and standard contractual clauses give named transfer safeguards, but we found no public information on EU hosting as a commitment or on which subprocessors touch the archive. 2
The Integrator
The entity that manages the platform is ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, under FTC jurisdiction, with personal data possibly stored and processed in the European Economic Area, the United States "or any other country" where the company or its contractors maintain facilities, and subprocessors named only on request. Standard contractual clauses and DPF certification are the only European-facing safeguards I can see; there is no EU contracting entity, no named data-centre provider and no published subprocessor list. 2
The Skeptic
The platform is managed by ESW Operations, LLC of Austin, Texas, storage is described as the European Economic Area, the United States or any other country where the company maintains facilities, and the subprocessor list is available only on request. The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework certification and standard contractual clauses are transfer scaffolding for a United States entity, not European hosting, an EU contracting party or a published subprocessor list. 2
Pricing transparency
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
Public unit prices exist — $79/agent/mo for Kayako One on one page, $1 per AI resolution or AI-deflected question, all integrations and API access included with no connection limits. But the captured pages give different figures for the same plan — "Custom pricing for your team" elsewhere and $1 per ticket on a third page — and I found no public information on billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment. I cannot put a defensible annual invoice in front of finance for twelve agents. 4 5 6 7
The Agent Advocate
One captured page shows Kayako One at $79/agent/mo with AI resolutions at $1 each and all integrations included with no per-connector fees and no connection limits — most of the maths a support lead needs. But I found no public information on billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment, the usage-metered deflection charges sit in no annual table, and the captured pages give different figures for Kayako One — "$79/agent/mo" on one and "Custom pricing for your team" on another. 5 6 3 7
The Data Protection Officer
A public per-agent price of $79/agent/mo appears alongside $1 per AI resolution, with integrations, API access and connectors said to be included and no per-connector fees or connection limits; the captured pages give different figures for the product, one showing custom pricing for your team. We found no public information on billing period, minimum term, VAT treatment, light-agent or contact limits, or a calculator that produces the annual invoice for a given agent count. 5 6 7
The Shop Operator
The captured pages give different pricing for Kayako One: "$79/agent/mo" with "$1 per AI resolution" on one page and "Custom pricing for your team" on another, and the per-resolution fee makes the annual invoice depend on deflection volume I cannot predict. The inclusion statements are genuinely helpful — all integrations included, no per-connector fees, no connection limits — but we found no public information on minimum term, VAT treatment or annual billing. 3 5 6 7
The Integrator
A public per-agent figure of $79/agent/mo and a $1 per AI resolution charge are stated, with all integrations included and no connection limits — but the captured pages give different figures for the same plan, one showing "Custom pricing for your team", alongside a claim of $1 per ticket, so a buyer cannot tell what the invoice is actually built from. I found no public information on billing-period commitment, minimum term, or VAT treatment. 3 5 6 7
The Skeptic
The captured pages give different figures for what Kayako One costs: $79/agent/mo on one page, Custom pricing for your team on another, and We charge $1 per ticket alongside AI resolutions at $1 each — included with every plan elsewhere. Per-unit numbers are public and per-connector fees are disclaimed, but I found no public information on VAT treatment, minimum term or light-agent pricing, so a support lead cannot compute the real annual invoice from these pages alone. 3 4 5 6
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Kayako
Is Kayako European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Kayako is based.
Where does Kayako store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Kayako have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Kayako?
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: Kayako alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 5 compliance 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 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations & API — found from sitemap kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & API — found from sitemap kayako.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →