LiveAgent

The Support Lead

Departments, a working status model, tags, rules and time rules, canned messages, ticket split, and SLA timers per type — first answer, next answer, first assign, first resolve, plus call and chat pickup — feeding an SLA log and SLA compliance reports I could take to a quarterly review. Business hours extend the timers rather than pausing them, workable but worth knowing before the sales-deck promise. I found no public information on breach warnings, escalation chains, ticket merging or full-text search across ticket bodies, so the warn-before-breach and find-the-ticket pieces stay unconfirmed. 4 5 11 13

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

The SLA machinery is real and not decorative: six timer types with business-hours behaviour, an SLA log feeding compliance and agent/department reports, a queue ordered by importance, a To-solve distribution, macros and Rules/Time rules as triggers, and a documented split. What holds it back is what I reach for after six years: we found no public information on merging tickets, escalation chains, or search that reaches into ticket bodies. 4 5 11 13

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The engine is documented in real depth: six SLA timer types with business-hours handling, a status model running from New through Postponed to Resolved, SLA logging and SLA-compliance reporting, canned messages, split, and rule-based application of SLA levels. What keeps it out of the top band for me: I found no public information on an audit log of every status change, or on documented merge and escalation chains. 4 5 11 13

Report an error

The Shop Operator

The SLA engine is the real thing — six SLA types covering first answer, first resolve, calls and chats, with business hours, holidays, an SLA log for reporting, and a To-solve distribution that orders work by importance across departments. I found no public information on full-text search across ticket bodies, escalation chains, or merge — only split is documented — so the queue is well tracked but not yet managed. 4 5 13 11

Report an error

The Integrator

The SLA engine is real and granular: five timer types across first answer, next answer, first resolve, and call and chat pickup, business hours and holidays that extend rather than pause the timers, an SLA log feeding compliance reports, and SLA levels driving the ordering of the ticket grid and the To-solve distribution to agents. Canned messages, tags, rules and time rules, ticket split, and departments with per-department roles give me a workable routing base. I found no public information on merging tickets, escalation chains on breach, or search behaviour across ticket bodies, which keeps it below the top band. 4 5 11 13

Report an error

The Skeptic

Six named SLA timers with business hours, a five-state status model, canned and predefined answers, ticket split, and an SLA log with per-agent and per-department reports put this above the working-queue baseline. But business hours extend the timers rather than pausing them, and we found no public information on merge, escalation chains, breach warnings, or any search across ticket bodies — so the half-remembered-phrase test stays unanswered. 4 5 11 13

Report an error

The Support Lead

Email, chat, phone, contact forms, WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram and X are documented landing as tickets in one inbox, with the captures specific that every Viber message arrives as a ticket message and that tickets originate from email, calls, chats and social messages. Telephony is real: SIP providers, per-number IVR routing to an agent or department, and calls living inside tickets. I found no public information on messenger consent handling or on a requester seeing their own tickets in the customer portal, which is what keeps me from rating this higher. 1 4 6 7 12

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

Every channel lands as the same object — a missed call, a Viber message, a social post all create tickets in one grid with the customer's history, and phone is genuinely there with four named SIP providers and per-number IVR. It stops short of the higher bar because we found no public information on consent handling for the messengers, and the portal evidence shows self-service content rather than a requester watching their own tickets. 1 4 6 7 12

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Email, chat, a built-in call centre with IVR and callback, and the messengers all land as tickets — the API's own channel list confirms WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram and X write into the same conversation store. I found no public information on consent handling for the messaging channels, and a requester seeing their own tickets in the portal is implied by portal features rather than documented. 1 6 7 13

Report an error

The Shop Operator

This is what I judge on and it holds: WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram and X are all documented conversation channel types, calls arrive as tickets with IVR and four SIP providers behind them, and social and messaging messages take the New status like email does in one inbox. The pages are silent on messenger consent handling and on whether a requester can see their own tickets in the portal, which is what keeps this short of full marks. 1 4 6 7 13

Report an error

The Integrator

Email, chat, calls and the messaging and social channels all land as tickets in one queue — the API carries the channel on every conversation, an ongoing call can be listened to inside the ticket, and the voice side has IVR plus four documented SIP providers. Viber requires a bot account and WhatsApp arrives via Twilio or 360dialog; I found no public information on consent handling for the messengers or on a requester seeing their own tickets in the portal, so the last mile of channel switching stays unproven. 1 4 6 7 11 12

Report an error

The Skeptic

The channel list is long and, unusually, evidenced as one queue: the ticket model itself names email, calls, chats and social messages as sources, and telephony arrives through named SIP providers with per-number IVR. WhatsApp needs Twilio or 360dialog, Viber needs a bot account the page says users could no longer create after February 2024, and we found no public information on messenger consent handling or on a portal where a requester sees their own tickets. 1 4 6 7 12 13

Report an error

The Support Lead

There is a searchable public help centre with categories, forums, feedback boards, internal-only articles, multilingual support and a knowledgebase search API, and the AI chatbot answers from the knowledge base before handing off to a human with context — deflection on paper. But the chatbot runs on a separate FlowHunt account whose knowledge-indexing credits are paid separately, historical tickets can't serve as a knowledge source, and the up-to-75% automation figure is a claim I'd verify against the queue on a Monday morning. I found no public information on a draft-and-publish editorial workflow, article review dates, or reporting on which articles actually deflect. 1 8 9 13

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

There is a searchable public help centre with categories, multilingual content, internal-only articles and forums, plus an AI chatbot that answers from the knowledge base before a ticket exists and hands off to humans with context. But deflection here is a claim, not a number: we found no public information on a draft-and-publish workflow, suggestions while an agent answers, review dates, or reporting on which articles deflect — and the setup service states historical tickets can't serve as a knowledge source. 8 9 13

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

There is a searchable public portal with categories, internal-only articles, forums and feedback boards, multilingual content, and an AI chatbot answering from the knowledge base with human handoff — genuine deflection capability. I found no public information on editorial workflow, review dates flagging stale content, or reporting on which articles deflect, and the vendor itself notes historical tickets cannot serve as a knowledge source, so gap identification stays manual. 1 8 9

Report an error

The Shop Operator

The help centre is searchable, categorised and multilingual, with internal articles, forums and feedback boards, and the AI chatbot answers from that knowledge base in 100+ languages around the clock with handoff to humans — a real deflection play. I found no public information on draft-and-publish workflow, review dates, article-to-ticket links or deflection reporting, historical tickets cannot seed the knowledge base, and the bot depends on a FlowHunt account whose indexing credits are paid separately. 1 8 9 13

Report an error

The Integrator

The help centre is a genuine public portal with articles, forums, feedback boards, multiple languages, per-brand portals and customisable search widgets, and the API exposes categories, entries and search. But I found no public information on draft and publish workflow, versioning, review dates for stale content, article suggestions to agents or to customers before submission, or reporting on which articles deflect — the deflection story rests on an external chatbot whose knowledge indexing is billed separately in FlowHunt credits, and historical tickets cannot serve as a source. 8 9 13

Report an error

The Skeptic

A searchable public help centre with categories, internal articles, forums and multilingual support is on the page, and deflection exists — but it is the AI chatbot, which runs on a separate FlowHunt account whose knowledge indexing requires credits paid separately, and the vendor states historical tickets cannot be used as a knowledge source. We found no public information on draft-and-publish workflow, article suggestions to agents while answering, review dates for stale content, or reporting on which articles deflect. 8 9 13

Report an error

The Support Lead

Deletion is executable rather than merely described: downloadable DPA templates for EU, US and Asia with a signed-verification path, in-app deletion of a customer's tickets and contact data, a documented 30-day active-data plus 30-day cold-backup timeline, and a Search & Replace plugin that regex-masks card and ID numbers as messages arrive, with the original storable in a custom field. Custom roles go down to department level with granular default permissions, and the vendor's access to customer data is documented as request- or approval-gated. I found no public information on automatic retention rules per queue or data category, or an audit log of who opened which ticket — exactly what a data-protection audit would ask me for. 3 4 10 11

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

Deletion actually executes: all of a customer's tickets on request, profiles from the customer portal, terminated accounts cleared from the cloud in 30 days with a stated 30-day cold backup; the DPA templates are downloadable, roles run granular with department-level overrides, and a regex redaction plugin masks card numbers as tickets arrive. Two gaps remain: we found no public information on an audit log of who opened which ticket, or on retention rules configurable per queue or data category. 3 4 10 11

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Close to my checklist: a signable DPA with an EU template, executable deletion of a requester's tickets and profiles with stated timelines (30 days active data plus 30 days cold backup), regex-based redaction of card and ID numbers on arrival across chats, emails, forms and portal, and fine-grained agent permissions with department-level overrides. The vendor even states its support, development and marketing teams access customer data only on request or with approval; what I found no public information on is an audit log of who opened which ticket and automatic retention rules per queue or data category. 3 4 10 11

Report an error

The Shop Operator

Deletion actually executes: all tickets of a customer can be deleted in the app, profiles can be removed from the customer portal, and terminated accounts leave the cloud in thirty days with a cold backup held another thirty. The Search-and-Replace feature masks card numbers and similar patterns on arrival with the original optionally kept in a custom field, DPA templates are downloadable and signable, the subprocessor list is published, and vendor access is described as requiring the customer's request or approval — though I found no public information on an audit log of who opened which ticket, or retention rules per data category. 3 4 10 11

Report an error

The Integrator

Erasure executes rather than being merely promised: all of a requester's tickets and contact data can be deleted in the application, customers can delete their own profiles from the portal, and a search-and-replace plugin redacts matched patterns such as card numbers automatically as messages arrive, with the original optionally parked in a custom ticket field. A downloadable and signable EU data processing addendum, a published subprocessor list, granular permissions with department-level precedence, and a documented, approval-based internal access policy round this out. I found no public information on automatic retention rules per queue, an audit log of who opened which ticket, or retention periods more specific than the duration of service use, which caps the score. 3 4 10 11

Report an error

The Skeptic

What executes is decent: downloadable and signable DPA templates, deletion of all a customer's tickets on request inside the application, per-line regex redaction of card and ID numbers as messages arrive, and default-deny permissions that department-level roles can override. We found no public information on automatic retention rules per queue or data category, or on an audit log of who opened which ticket; retention is described as service-duration-or-until-deleted, with terminated accounts gone in 30 days plus a 30-day cold backup. 3 4 10 11

Report an error

The Support Lead

The REST API is properly documented — conversation operations, statuses, tags, files, knowledgebase search, agent and department reports, API keys mandatory on every call, pagination, and deprecation notes pointing to successor endpoints — and the named integrations include Twilio, Vonage, TeleCube, VIPTel, Slack and the social channels. The Slack integration works one way by its own description, and I found no public information on webhooks, SSO, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits, or named CRM and shop systems, which is what my team would need to pull order context into the ticket. 6 11 12 13

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

The API reference is genuinely complete — a documented REST API with keys covering conversations, messages, files, knowledge base search and reports, with pagination limits stated — and the telephony side names four providers. But for the systems I actually need beside the ticket, the captured pages name no CRM or shop system, the Slack integration works one way only, and we found no public information on webhooks, SSO, SCIM, rate limits or a sandbox. 1 6 12 13

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The REST API is genuinely documented — conversation CRUD with delete and status changes, agents, customers, files, knowledgebase search and reports, with pagination limits and deprecation notices — and telephony (Twilio, Vonage) plus messenger integrations are named. The named integrations stop at telephony and social: I found no public information on webhooks, documented rate limits, SSO or SCIM provisioning, or connectors for CRM and shop systems. 6 12 13

Report an error

The Shop Operator

The REST API is documented and genuinely read-write — create messages, change statuses, tags, files, knowledge base and reports — with an API key mandatory on every call, plus four SIP providers and a one-way Slack integration. I found no public information on webhooks, SSO, SCIM, rate limits or named CRM and shop connectors, and the only route to my order status inside a conversation is a chatbot integration that needs my team's assistance and a separately billed FlowHunt account. 3 6 9 12 13

Report an error

The Integrator

The API reference is public and substantial: REST with a mandatory API key, write operations across conversations, messages, customers, custom fields, companies, files and the knowledge base, pagination limits, a deprecated endpoint retired with a migration note, and a versioned ticket-messages path referenced for attachment downloads, with telephony, Slack and the messaging channels documented as integrations. But the Slack link is one-way only, and I found no public information on webhooks for ticket events, documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning, a sandbox, SSO, or named CRM and shop integrations — so whatever I wire up is pull-only against unknown ceilings. 6 12 13

Report an error

The Skeptic

The API reference is real and writable — conversations, customers, knowledge base and files, with keys, pagination and version notes including one deprecated endpoint with its successor named — but the only named integrations in evidence are four telephony SIP providers and a strictly one-way Slack notification bot. Against the 200-plus-integration claim we found no public information on named CRM or shop integrations, webhooks, documented rate limits, SCIM provisioning or SSO. 6 12 13

Report an error

The Support Lead

EU hosting is a customer choice among Germany, UK and Slovakia data centres hosted by Linode, with an EU-US-Asia set of DPA templates, a published link to the subprocessor list, and a downloadable self-hosted license for buyers who want the archive on their own infrastructure. But no default region is stated for new accounts, the captured pages give different company names for the contracting entity — an s.r.o. in the vendor details and an LLC in the copyright lines — cross-border transfers are described as "within EU or US grounds", and Linode is a US-headquartered provider, so US legal exposure sits under even the EU-hosted option. For a twelve-seat EU team I'd want the contracting entity and the non-EU legal basis in writing before rating this higher. 2 3 8 9 12

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

EU hosting is an option the customer chooses at setup — no default region is stated — and even the European data centers in Germany, UK and Slovakia are hosted by Linode, Inc., a US-headquartered provider, with transfers described as "within EU or US grounds." The captured pages also give different names for the contracting entity — the vendor header reads Quality Unit, s.r.o. while the copyright lines read Quality Unit, LLC — so I can't tell who I'd be signing with. The published subprocessor list and signable DPA are the honest bright spots. 2 3 8

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

EU residency is a choice the customer must actively make — United States, Europe or Asia, with no default stated for new accounts — and the captured pages give different figures for the contracting entity, with the copyright showing Quality Unit, LLC. A subprocessor list is published and the data-centre provider is named with German, UK and Slovakian locations, yet that provider is US-headquartered and transfers are described as running within EU or US grounds with no legal basis stated. 2 3 8

Report an error

The Shop Operator

EU residency is a customer choice among United States, Europe and Asia, with no stated default for new accounts, and although the EU data centres in Germany, UK and Slovakia are named with Linode as host, Linode is a US-headquartered provider, so the US Cloud Act sits over the European archive. The captured pages give different contracting figures too — Quality Unit, s.r.o. as the vendor and Quality Unit, LLC in the copyright — and I found no public information settling which entity I would sign with. 2 3 8 9

Report an error

The Integrator

EU hosting is a customer choice among United States, Europe and Asia locations rather than a stated default, with EU datacenters in Germany, UK and Slovakia hosted by Linode — a US-headquartered provider — while the subprocessor list is published and agreements are signed with each subprocessor. The captured pages give different names for the contracting entity — Quality Unit, s.r.o. in the vendor record, Quality Unit, LLC on the copyright lines — and although self-hosted licenses exist as an escape hatch, the unresolved entity, the unstated default region and the unexplained US exposure keep this low for a buyer who needs the archive firmly inside the EU. 2 3 8 9 12

Report an error

The Skeptic

EU hosting is a customer choice among United States, Europe and Asia with no default region stated, and the EU data centres named are hosted by Linode, Inc., a US-headquartered provider — an exposure the captured pages do not address. The captured pages give different figures for the contracting entity (a US-style limited liability company in the copyright lines against the Slovak-form company on the vendor line); a subprocessor list is published, which keeps this just above the floor. 2 3 8 9

Report an error

The Support Lead

The public pages state a starting price of $15 per agent/month (billed annually) across Small, Medium, Large and Enterprise tiers, with no contracts and no setup fees, and the AI chatbot setup itself carries no fee. But the tiers are described only as adding call center, social channel integration and SLA, with no per-tier prices in the captures, and the chatbot depends on a separate FlowHunt account whose indexing credits are paid separately — so I cannot compute the annual invoice for a team that needs SLA and phone from public pages alone. I found no public information on light-agent or contact limits. 1 9

Report an error

The Agent Advocate

The headline is public and the terms are stated plainly — $15 per agent/month (billed annually), no contracts, no setup fees — but that is the only number on these pages, and where the call center or SLA begins is named only in a generic feature list. The AI chatbot's real cost runs through separately purchased FlowHunt credits that no page prices, so a support lead cannot compute the annual invoice from public information. 1 9

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A per-agent headline of $15 per agent/month billed annually is public, with tiers named and no-contract, no-setup-fee terms stated — but the tier at which call centre, social channels or SLA actually begin is not laid out, and the AI features sit outside the legacy plans on separately paid FlowHunt credits with no price. I found no public information on VAT treatment, light-agent terms, or per-tier prices. 1 9

Report an error

The Shop Operator

There is a public headline — $15 per agent/month billed annually across Small, Medium, Large and Enterprise plans, with no contracts and no setup fees — but the pages never attach a price to the higher tiers or say exactly where call centre, social channels or SLA begin, so I cannot compute the annual invoice for agents who need phone and messengers. The AI chatbot sits outside that arithmetic altogether, needing a FlowHunt account with credits paid separately, and I found no public information on VAT treatment or contact limits. 1 9

Report an error

The Integrator

A headline of $15 per agent/month billed annually is public with Small, Medium, Large and Enterprise tiers named, alongside statements of no contracts, no setup fees and plan changes anytime. But no other tier carries a number, the pages say only that higher tiers add call center, social channels and SLA without saying where each begins, and the AI chatbot requires a new plan plus separately purchased FlowHunt credits — so the real annual invoice for my agent count is not computable from public pages. VAT treatment is likewise unstated. 1 9

Report an error

The Skeptic

A $15 per agent per month headline exists, billed annually, with no contracts and no setup fees — but the tiers described as adding call centre, social channel integration and SLA are not individually priced, so a support lead cannot see where SLA policies begin. The AI chatbot needs credits in a separate FlowHunt account, paid apart and unpriced, and we found no public information on contact limits or VAT treatment. 1 9

Report an error