whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Customer Service & Helpdesk

LivePerson

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by LivePerson, Inc. · www.liveperson.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

LivePerson: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai LivePerson: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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.

LivePerson at a glance

Vendor
LivePerson, Inc.
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates LivePerson 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. LivePerson Conversational Cloud earns its strongest scores on integrations and omnichannel, both clustering at 6 to 7. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources

LivePerson alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Sees a ticket archive for what it is: years of personal data customers typed themselves, including the things they should not have. Wants retention that executes, redaction, an audit of who read what, and an answer on whether vendor support can open a ticket.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Data Protection Officer
Ticketing, queues & SLA 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Channels in one queue 3 of 5 3 of 5
Knowledge base & deflection 3 of 5 3 of 5
Customer data protection 3 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations & API 3 of 5 3 of 5

Ticketing, queues & SLA

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 — Not a ticketing tool: requests stay in a shared mailbox or chat with no ticket, owner or status of their own.

3 — Tickets with assignment, a status and a conversation history, worked from a shared inbox with views or filters.

5 — Tickets routed by rules or automations to teams or agents, priorities and statuses, SLA targets or response-time reporting, and search across tickets.

8 — Business-hours-aware SLA policies per queue or customer with breach warnings and escalation, macros and triggers, merge and split, skills- or load-based assignment, 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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Work is routed and measured around skills: conversations transfer between skills, agents resume and close them, queue size and maximum wait are reported per skill, and a histogram gives the distribution of wait time before an agent replies — though the captured pages state those queue and SLA APIs belong to a legacy chat product with a recommended replacement. Conversation search via the Engagement History and Messaging Interactions APIs is documented. I found no public information on priorities, escalation chains or business-hours SLA policies. 2 3 8 11

Report an error

Channels in one queue

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 — No customer channel of its own; the product only works on tickets entered by hand or by another system.

3 — Email turned into tickets, with a web form or one further channel.

5 — Email, a web form or portal and live chat or a messenger landing as tickets in one inbox, with the customer's earlier conversations visible to the agent.

8 — The above plus telephony integration with call logging, at least one messenger (WhatsApp or similar) with its consent handling stated, social channels, and a customer portal where a requester can see their own tickets — all in one history.

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Facebook, Google My Business, Apple Messages for Business, LINE and SMS connectors land in the same Conversational Cloud, and voice is genuinely in one history — call recordings and text transcripts are available in the Agent Workspace and warm transfers to human agents preserve context. I found no public information on email as a channel, a customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets, or stated consent handling for messengers. 1 4 5 11

Report an error

Knowledge base & deflection

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 or self-service of any kind; the product is a ticket inbox only.

3 — A knowledge base or FAQ with articles, internal or public, that agents can link in replies.

5 — A searchable public help centre with categories and its own branding, draft and publish states, and agents able to insert or suggest an article in a reply.

8 — Article suggestions to the customer before they submit and to the agent while they answer, multilingual articles, review dates or versioning 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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

KnowledgeAI treats articles as managed content: categories, tags and intent qualifiers, AI search across all article fields, automatic back-up versions that can be restored, validity windows in UTC, and knowledge bases that can be public or private; Conversation Assist recommends articles to agents mid-conversation, including generatively enriched answers. I found no public information on multilingual articles or on reporting that shows which articles actually deflect tickets. 5 6 7

Report an error

Customer data protection

How this is scored

A ticket archive is personal data written by the data subject. Retention, deletion, access control, subject rights under DSGVO, and what the vendor does with attachments — judged on what the product documents it executes.

0 — The vendor's own terms state that ticket content is used for purposes beyond providing the service, or that a data processing agreement is not offered.

3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement (DPA) offered, with agent roles that limit what an agent can do.

5 — A DPA published or signable online, agent roles and group- or queue-level visibility, and deletion of tickets or of a requester's data documented in the help centre.

8 — Automatic retention or deletion rules per queue or data category, attachment handling stated, an audit log of agent access or changes, documented support for access and erasure requests, and 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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The erasure machinery is documented to a standard I rarely see: an API built for the GDPR right to be forgotten with four scopes (chat engagement, messaging conversation, consumer, ticket), a five-day cancellable grace period, execution within 30 days, permanence stated outright, attachments and hosted files in scope, and ticket metadata masked rather than deleted — a limitation the documentation itself discloses; PII and PCI can additionally be redacted from transcripts and recordings via a representative. What the captured pages do not show me is retention rules that execute on a schedule, an audit trail of which agent read which conversation, a published processing agreement, or support for access requests as opposed to erasure. 5 8 9

Report an error

Integrations & API

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 — A closed tool with no API and no integrations; context is copied in by hand.

3 — A handful of named integrations or a connector service such as Zapier, or an API with basic documentation.

5 — Named integrations for common CRM, shop or collaboration tools, a documented REST API, and webhooks or triggers that call other systems.

8 — An app marketplace with maintained bidirectional integrations, customer context from other systems shown inside the ticket, SSO and 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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A public developer centre documents a Salesforce integration that surfaces contact, lead, account and opportunity data inside the conversation and stores transcripts in the CRM, plus a Connector API with a webhooks notification service, a sample app, and rate limits with retry guidance spelled out. The Salesforce sync is stated as one-way from Conversational Cloud to Salesforce, and I found no public information on an app marketplace or on SSO and SCIM provisioning. 3 10 11

Report an error

European sovereignty

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. Dimensions the evidence does not establish are unknown, not non-EU.

0 — Proven non-EU on every dimension the evidence covers: non-EU vendor and contracting entity and non-EU hosting, with no EU option stated.

3 — One European element proven — an EU hosting option, an EU contracting entity or EU representative, or a published DPA — with the rest of the chain unstated.

5 — EU hosting stated as standard or selectable and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a DPA offered; the subprocessor chain is unstated or partly non-EU.

8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations, 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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information

I found no public information establishing where the conversation archive is hosted, which entity the customer contracts with, or which subprocessors touch the data — no sovereignty attributes were on record from the captured pages. The GDPR compliance statement for the voice feature and the right-to-be-forgotten API address data protection behaviour, but neither proves a hosting location, an EU entity or a subprocessor chain, so no dimension is established. 1 5 8

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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 public "from" price or one priced tier, per agent or flat.

5 — Per-agent prices public for the main tiers with the billing period stated and the main features per tier listed.

8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with per-agent maths, telephony or messenger costs and light-agent or contact limits given, 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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The captured homepage shows only a 'Pricing' link with no figures — no tiers, per-agent costs, billing periods or VAT treatment appear anywhere I read — and documented capabilities such as PII redaction and post-call analysis route the buyer to a LivePerson representative. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice from the captured pages. 1 5

Report an error

Questions about LivePerson

Is LivePerson European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where LivePerson is based.

Where does LivePerson store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

Does LivePerson have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to LivePerson?

As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates Zendesk (3.5/5), HubSpot Service Hub (3.5/5) and Deskpro (3.5/5) highest among the other 35 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: LivePerson alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about LivePerson? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Customer data protection — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Customer data protection — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap developers.liveperson.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →