Customer Service & Helpdesk
LiveChat
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Text S.A. (formerly LiveChat Software S.A.) · www.livechat.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
LiveChat, from Text S.A., is described as customer service software for sales and support on websites, and the public record evidences that much: website live chat in an Inbox for humans and AI agents with a revenue counter, vendor support by live chat 24/7/365, and a free 14-day trial with no credit card required. Persona-weighted totals span 0.5 to 1.1. Strongest is omnichannel at 1-2, where website live chat is the one channel evidenced. Ticketing core sits at 1-2 — an inbox with a counter, not routing rules, SLA timers or ticket search. Weakest are knowledge and self-service, customer data protection and integrations at 0-1: we found no public information on a help centre, retention, deletion, a signable data processing agreement or an API. Knowledge and self-service splits 0-1 — the judges at 1 name the AI agents answering in the Inbox as the only adjacent signal; those at 0 found nothing to credit. Sovereignty sits at 1-2 with no sovereignty attributes on record, and the vendor record names Text S.A. while the captured copyright reads Text, Inc.
Speaks for it
- Website live chat is the one customer channel the captured copy actually evidences.
- Humans and AI agents answer in one Inbox, per the captured claim of 'the first Inbox with revenue counter for humans and AI agents'.
- Vendor product experts are stated to be available by live chat 24/7/365.
- The captured page states a free 14-day trial with no credit card required.
Held against it
- Customer data protection scores cluster at 0, with no public information on retention, deletion, agent roles or a signable data processing agreement.
- Integrations scores sit at 0 with a single 1, and no public information on an API, webhooks, SSO or named CRM and shop systems.
- Knowledge and self-service scores split 0-1, with no public information on a help centre, article workflow or deflection reporting.
- Ticketing core scores sit at 1-2 — an inbox with a revenue counter, with no public information on routing rules, SLA timers or search.
- Sovereignty attributes are on record as none, with the vendor record naming Text S.A. while the captured copyright reads Text, Inc.
Best for
- You need live chat on your website for sales and support, and one channel is enough.
- You want AI agents and humans answering together in a single inbox.
- You want to evaluate before committing — the page states a free 14-day trial with no credit card required.
Avoid if
- You run email, phone, messengers or a customer portal that must land in one shared queue — the captured copy evidences website chat only.
- Your team needs routing rules, SLA timers and escalation against a promised SLA — the engine is invisible in public material.
- You handle personal data a regulator will ask about — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need an API, webhooks or SSO to wire this beside a CRM, shop or identity provider — the public record shows nothing to build against.
The scores
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 sells an Inbox with a revenue counter for humans and AI agents and says nothing about how work moves through it. We found no public information on routing rules, priorities, SLA timers with breach warnings, escalation chains or search across tickets, so the engine my twelve agents would run against a promised SLA is invisible to a buyer. 1
The Agent Advocate
The only queue-adjacent claim on the page is an Inbox with a revenue counter; I found no public information on routing rules, a status model, SLA timers, macros, or search across ticket bodies. A revenue counter tells me the pitch goes to sales, not to the person clearing the hundredth reply. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured homepage markets an "Inbox with revenue counter for humans and AI agents" — a conversation list with a counter, not an evidenced ticketing engine — and I found no public information on queues, routing rules, priorities, SLA timers, a status model or full-text search across ticket bodies. That sits a hair above a shared mailbox with labels. 1
The Shop Operator
The page names an Inbox with a revenue counter for humans and AI agents, but I found no public information on queues, routing rules, priorities, SLA timers with breach warnings, or search across ticket history. When ten thousand 'where is my parcel' tickets land in December, I need to know how work is owned and escalated, and nothing captured speaks to that. An inbox with a counter is a surface, not a ticketing engine. 1
The Integrator
The captured page markets "the first Inbox with revenue counter for humans and AI agents," which tells me an inbox exists but a revenue counter is a sales metric, not workload management. I found no public information on assignment, status models, routing rules, SLA timers or ticket search. That sits between a bare shared thread and the first rung where tickets carry owners and statuses. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page markets an "Inbox with revenue counter for humans and AI agents" and stops there. We found no public information on queues, assignment, a status model, SLA timers with breach warnings, or search across ticket bodies, and nothing on the page names a tier where SLA policies begin. 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
Website live chat is the one customer channel the page evidences, alongside their own 24/7/365 chat line for buyers. We found no public information on email, telephony, a customer portal or messengers writing into one shared queue with shared history, so whether a customer can switch channel mid-issue cannot be assessed from public material. 1
The Agent Advocate
Website chat is clearly the product, but I found no public information on email, phone, a customer portal, or any messenger landing in the same queue with shared history. One channel into one inbox is where this sits, however polished the inbox. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Every word captured points at website chat — "sales and support on websites" — with humans and AI agents answering, and I found no public information on email, a portal, telephony or messengers landing in the same queue with one shared history. One channel evidenced is one channel. 1
The Shop Operator
The product is described as customer service software for sales and support on websites, which evidences exactly one channel: chat. I found no public information on email, telephony, WhatsApp or any messenger, or a customer portal landing in one queue with one history, so a customer who switches channel mid-issue has to start again as far as the captured page shows. 1
The Integrator
Live chat on websites is the only channel evidenced anywhere in the captured material, shared by human and AI agents in one Inbox. I found no public information on email, a customer portal, messengers or telephony landing in that queue, nor on whether history follows a customer who switches channel. 1
The Skeptic
Website live chat is the one channel the captured copy actually evidences — even the vendor's own support promise is delivered by live chat "24/7/365". We found no public information on email, phone, messengers or a customer portal landing in the same queue with one shared history, so the verifiable channel count is one. 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
The only deflection-adjacent claim is AI agents in the Inbox, and an AI claim is something I check against the Monday queue rather than credit from a tagline. We found no public information on a searchable help centre, editorial workflow, review dates or deflection reporting. 1
The Agent Advocate
Nothing on the page touches a help centre, article workflow, suggestions, or deflection reporting; I found no public information on any knowledge base at all. A product pitched on revenue rather than on fewer tickets is not aimed at the problem I judge by. 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on a help centre, article workflow, versioning, agent-facing suggestions or deflection reporting; the captured page describes the chat product and the vendor's own 24/7 support only. Without an evidenced knowledge asset, nothing here can be said to reduce ticket volume. 1
The Shop Operator
I found no public information on a help centre, article workflow, article suggestions to agents or customers, or any deflection reporting. My test is whether the ticket count falls in December, and nothing captured addresses reducing demand at all. 1
The Integrator
The only adjacent signal is that AI agents answer in the Inbox, which is automation of replies rather than self-service. I found no public information on a public help centre, article workflow, suggestions before submission, review dates or deflection reporting. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a public help centre, article workflow, suggestions to customers or agents, or deflection reporting. The captured page is silent on self-service entirely. 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
We found no public information on a signable data-processing agreement, retention periods, deletion of a requester's data, agent roles and queue visibility, or an audit log. With nothing visible that executes, I treat protection as unevidenced. 1
The Agent Advocate
I found no public information on retention periods, deletion of a requester's data, agent roles or queue-level visibility, an audit trail, or a signable DPA. A chat archive is personal data written by the data subject, and nothing captured here says what happens to it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The criterion I weigh hardest, and the capture is silent on all of it: no stated retention period, no deletion path, no agent roles or queue-level visibility, no audit log of who opened which ticket, no published DPA and no subprocessor list — I found no public information on any of these. The "AI agents" marketing makes it urgent to know what ticket content flows to which model and whether vendor support can open a customer's ticket, and neither question is answered on the captured page. 1
The Shop Operator
The captured page states 24/7/365 live chat support and nothing about retention periods, deletion of a requester's data, agent roles or queue visibility, or a signable data processing agreement. A chat archive is the customer's own words, and with none of that publicly evidenced I have nothing to score here. 1
The Integrator
I found no public information on retention periods, deletion paths, agent roles or queue visibility, a signable DPA, or attachment handling. Nothing that would actually execute on an access or erasure request is evidenced, so I score it at the floor. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a signable data processing agreement, stated retention periods, executable deletion of a requester's data, agent roles or queue-level visibility, or attachment handling. A ticket archive is personal data written by the data subject, and the captured page evidences no control that executes on it. 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
We found no public information on named integrations, a documented API, webhooks or single sign-on. On this evidence, order and customer context would be pasted into the conversation by hand. 1
The Agent Advocate
I found no public information on an API, webhooks, SSO, SCIM, or named integrations with CRM, shop, or order systems. Quick setup on a website is the product itself, not a documented path to the customer's other systems. 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on an API, webhooks, SSO, SCIM or any named CRM, shop or identity integration; the capture shows the product description and the vendor's own live chat support availability. On this evidence, agent context beyond the chat window itself is unevidenced. 1
The Shop Operator
I judge this by whether the order sits in front of the agent without a second login, and I found no public information on any named CRM, shop or order-management integration, nor on an API, webhooks or SSO. The captured page names none of the systems a helpdesk has to reach. 1
The Integrator
I read the captured page end to end for an API reference, rate limits, webhooks, SCIM or a sandbox and found no public information on any of them, and no CRM, shop or identity integration is named either. For wiring this beside a CRM and an identity provider that predate it, the public record gives me nothing to build against — not even a partner form to resent. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, rate limits, SSO, or named CRM and shop integrations. The captured copy names no neighbouring system the product connects to. 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
The captured pages give different figures for the company — Text S.A. on the vendor line against a copyright notice reading Text, Inc. — and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or vendor support access to customer data. A European buyer is asked to take the archive's whereabouts on faith, and nothing in the public material backs it. 1
The Agent Advocate
The vendor record names a European company in the S.A. form while the captured page's only legal line reads Text, Inc.; I found no public information on where hosting sits, which subprocessors touch the archive, or what vendor support access looks like. Weighed as this buyer weighs it, an unconfirmed entity and an unnamed chain lands near the floor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Sovereignty attributes are on record as none: hosting location, data-centre provider and every subprocessor are unstated. The vendor is recorded as Text S.A. while the captured copyright reads Text, Inc., and I found no public information resolving which entity a European buyer contracts with or where the ticket archive would reside — an unnamed processing chain is the floor of what I can accept for personal data. 1
The Shop Operator
The vendor is listed as Text S.A. while the captured page carries a copyright for Text, Inc., and no sovereignty attributes are on record. Hosting location is unstated, no subprocessor list appears, and there is no public word on where the archive lives or whether vendor support can read customer data, which puts this at the bottom of my scale. 1
The Integrator
The only entity signal is the copyright line "Text, Inc.", which sits beside a vendor name of Text S.A., so the captured material gives different company names and I cannot tell who the contracting party is. I found no public information on hosting location, data-centre provider, subprocessors, certification or whether vendor support can read customer data. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page names the company only as "Text, Inc.", with hosting location, contracting jurisdiction and data-centre provider unstated. We found no public information on EU hosting, a published subprocessor list, certification, or whether vendor support can read customer data. 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 one pricing-adjacent fact is a free 14-day trial with no credit card required; we found no public per-agent prices, tiers, billing periods or add-on costs. I could not begin to compute the annual invoice for twelve agents from the public pages. 1
The Agent Advocate
The only pricing fact captured is a free 14-day trial with no credit card required; I found no public prices, tiers, billing periods, minimum terms, or VAT treatment. A support lead cannot compute the annual invoice for their agent count from this page. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only pricing captured is a "Free 14-day trial" with "No credit card required"; I found no public information on per-agent prices, tier boundaries, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment. No annual invoice for any agent count can be computed from this. 1
The Shop Operator
The only public pricing fact is a free 14-day trial with no credit card required; I found no per-agent price, billing period, tier structure or VAT treatment anywhere on the captured page. A support lead cannot even begin to compute the annual invoice for their agent count from this. 1
The Integrator
The only commercial terms captured verbatim are "Free 14-day trial No credit card required," which is a trial condition, not a price. I found no public information on per-agent prices, tiers, billing period, minimum term or which capabilities sit in which bundle, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from what is public. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing fact on the captured page is "Free 14-day trial No credit card required"; no per-agent price, tier names, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment is stated. We found no public information on where channels, SLA features or the AI agent begin to cost money, so a support lead cannot compute an annual invoice from what is public. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 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.
- 17 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
- 16 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 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
- 4 legal 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
- 3 pricing 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 hosting 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 (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.livechat.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.livechat.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Customer data protection — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Customer data protection — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.livechat.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →