Customer Service & Helpdesk
Smartsupp
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Smartsupp s.r.o. · smartsupp.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
Smartsupp is a live-chat-centred helpdesk: one dashboard for all messages, agent teams with assignable roles and performance tracking, visitor conversation histories, and the Mira AI shopping assistant, trained via web-scraping and FAQs, claiming answers to up to 80% of common and technical questions. Integrations is its strongest criterion, scored 2 to 4 and the only one where any judge reached 4, with Shopify, WordPress, Prestashop, WiX and Magento named among 40+ integrations and 80+ platform integrations. Ticketing core (1 to 2) and customer data protection (1 to 2) sit at the low end of the table: judges found no public information on queues, SLA timers or escalation, and none on a signable DPA, retention or audit logging. Scores spread on knowledge and self-service (1 to 3) and sovereignty (1 to 3): some judges credit the bot's deflection claim or the vendor's Czech legal form, while others found no public information on a help centre, hosting location or a subprocessor list. The recorded disagreements list is empty. Public pricing stops at a free account and a 14-day all-features trial with no credit card required.
Speaks for it
- Native integrations for Shopify, WordPress, Prestashop, WiX and Magento, among 40+ integrations and 80+ platform integrations
- Agent teams with assignable roles and performance tracking in a single message dashboard
- Visitor conversation histories and the visitor's journey on your site visible to agents
- Mira AI assistant trained via web-scraping and FAQs, claiming answers to up to 80% of common and technical questions with configurable handover to a human operator
- Business mobile app available
Held against it
- No public information on ticket queues, routing rules, SLA timers or escalation
- Multichannel unification is claimed while the only channel named on the captured pages is the live chat widget
- No public information on a signable DPA, retention periods, deletion paths or audit logging
- No sovereignty attributes on record — no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or vendor access to customer data
- No public information on a documented API, webhooks or SSO; the only outbound flow shown is contact export
Best for
- You run an online shop on Shopify, Prestashop, WiX, Magento or WordPress and want live chat plus an AI shopping assistant that learns from your product feed
- You need a shared chat inbox with agent roles and per-visitor history rather than a managed ticket queue
- You want routine questions deflected by a bot trained on your FAQs and site content before handing over to an operator
Avoid if
- You need queues, SLA timers, escalation chains and a ticket status model to run your team; the captured pages describe a chat inbox with team management
- You depend on email, phone or messengers landing in the same queue; the only channel named anywhere is the live chat widget
- You must wire in a CRM or identity provider; the outbound flow shown is exporting contacts to any application or CRM system
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
Team management with agent roles, a single dashboard for all messages, and visitor conversation histories are shown, which is more than a bare mailbox. But I found no public information on ticket queues, routing rules, SLA timers with breach warnings, escalation chains, a status model or full-text search — none of the engine I would run twelve agents against. 1
The Agent Advocate
All messages in one dashboard with team roles and per-visitor history is a genuine inbox, but everything captured points to live chat, and we found no public information on queues, status models, SLA timers, macros, or search across conversation bodies. The only workflow measurement shown is tracking agent performance — the dashboard I trust least. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages show agent team organisation with assigned roles and a unified message dashboard, but we found no public information on tickets, queues, status models, SLA timers, escalation, or ticket search. I cannot credit a routing engine that no captured page describes, and the team-performance tracking shown is not ticketing. 1
The Shop Operator
The captured page shows agent teams with assigned roles, performance tracking and one dashboard for messages, but we found no public information on a ticket status model, SLA timers, escalation, merge and split, or search across ticket bodies. For a shop drowning in 'where is my parcel' threads, that sits between a shared inbox and basic tickets. 1
The Integrator
The captured page sells a chat inbox with agent teams, assignable roles and visitor conversation histories — ownership of a sort. I found no public information on queues, routing rules, priorities, SLA timers or escalation chains, and nothing on a status model or search across message bodies. That is a chat tool with team management, not a ticketing engine I could hang SLA reporting on. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page shows a unified chat dashboard with agent team organisation, assignable roles and performance tracking, but we found no public information on ticket statuses, routing rules, SLA timers, escalation or ticket search. There is also no priced tier where SLA policies might begin and nothing on what any limited agent seat may do. As evidenced, this is a chat inbox with team structure rather than a managed queue. 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
Live chat is the centre of the product and the pages claim a unified dashboard managing multichannel chats with each visitor's history. No channel besides chat is named anywhere, and I found no public information on email, telephony, messengers with consent handling, or a customer portal landing in that same queue, so this reads as a chat product carrying an unquantified multichannel claim. 1
The Agent Advocate
Live chat with full visitor history on a single screen is real, and unified multichannel chats are promised, but no second channel is named anywhere in the captured material — we found no public information on email, phone, portal or messengers landing in that same queue. A channel I cannot see named is a channel I cannot count. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The pages promise multichannel chats unified into a single dashboard with visitor conversation histories and site journey visible, which is more than a lone chat widget. However no channel beyond live chat is ever named — we found no public information on email, phone, portal, or messenger handling, so I cannot confirm they land in the same queue with the same history. 1
The Shop Operator
The page promises all messages unified in a single dashboard for multichannel chats, but we found no public information on which channels actually land together — no email, telephony, customer portal, or a named messenger such as WhatsApp with its consent handling. My bar is WhatsApp and the shop order arriving in one queue with one history, and the captured pages do not show it. 1
The Integrator
Unifying all messages into a single dashboard for multichannel chats is the promise, and histories travel with the visitor rather than sitting per-inbox, so a customer does not visibly restart from zero. But the captured page names no second channel concretely: I found no public information on email handling, a customer portal, telephony, or messenger consent handling. 1
The Skeptic
The page says to "unify all messages into a single dashboard" and "manage multichannel chats efficiently", yet the only channel it actually names is the live chat widget; we found no public information on email, phone, messengers, social or a customer portal landing in that queue. Visitor conversation history and site journey are visible, but only within chat, so a customer moving to another channel starts again as far as the captured material shows. 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 AI assistant trains on FAQs and web-scraped content and claims answers to up to 80% of common and technical questions, which is a deflection mechanism built on customer-facing content. I found no public information on a searchable help centre, editorial workflow, article suggestions to agents, review dates or reporting on which content deflects — knowledge here is chatbot training input, not a managed asset. 1
The Agent Advocate
The AI assistant trains on web-scraped pages and FAQs, so some knowledge content exists, but we found no public information on a searchable public help centre, article workflow, review dates or deflection reporting. The claim of answering up to 80% of questions is about the chatbot replying, not about customers finding articles themselves. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on a help centre, article workflow, versioning, or deflection reporting; the only knowledge mechanic evidenced is an AI assistant trained through web-scraping and FAQs and claimed to answer up to 80% of common questions itself. That is deflection of a kind, but no managed knowledge asset is shown on the captured pages. 1
The Shop Operator
Deflection is carried by an AI shopping assistant trained through web-scraping and FAQs, claimed to answer up to 80% of common and technical questions with handover to a human operator; we found no public information on a public help centre, article workflow, review dates, or reporting on which content deflects. A bot might cut December's ticket count, but nothing here evidences a managed knowledge asset. 1
The Integrator
Deflection exists as a bot — the AI assistant answers up to 80 percent of common and technical questions, trained through web-scraping and FAQs, with configurable handover to a human. I found no public information on a help centre, editorial workflow, versioning, review dates or reporting on which content actually deflects. 1
The Skeptic
Deflection is attempted through the Mira chatbot, trained on FAQs and web-scraped content, claiming to answer up to 80% of common questions with configurable handover to a human. But we found no public information on a public help centre, article workflow, versioning, review dates, multilingual content, or reporting on which content deflects — and no evidenced link between articles and conversations. 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
A data privacy and GDPR page exists, agent roles can be assigned, and contacts are exportable out of the system. I found no public information on a signable data processing agreement, a stated retention period, a deletion path for a requester's data, audit logging or attachment handling — nothing I could take into a privacy review of our ticket archive. 1
The Agent Advocate
A GDPR page is published, agents get roles, and contacts can be exported out — that is the beginning of protection, not its execution. We found no public information on a signable DPA, a stated retention period, a deletable requester record, or an audit trail of who opened which conversation. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A dedicated data privacy & GDPR page exists and agent roles can be assigned, which is a bare start. For everything my role turns on — a signable DPA, a stated retention period, an executable deletion of a requester's data, attachment handling, an audit log of who opened which conversation — we found no public information, and a chat archive is personal data customers typed themselves; that silence decides the score. 1
The Shop Operator
A data privacy and GDPR page is named and agent roles exist, but we found no public information on retention periods, deletion paths, a signable data processing agreement, audit logging of who opened which ticket, or attachment handling. A ticket archive is the customer's own personal data, and this is nowhere near what an audit would need. 1
The Integrator
A dedicated data privacy and GDPR page is published and agent teams with assignable roles exist, which is more than nothing. I found no public information on a signable DPA, a stated retention period, deletion of a requester's data, audit logging or redaction of content. 1
The Skeptic
A data privacy & GDPR page exists and agent roles can be assigned, but we found no public information on a stated retention period, a signable DPA, an executable deletion path for a requester's data, audit logging or attachment handling. Only the page title is captured, so nothing here shows what actually executes rather than what is promised. 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
Forty-plus integrations are advertised with Shopify, WordPress, Prestashop, WiX and Magento named among eighty-plus platform integrations, and contacts can be exported to any CRM. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, SSO or SCIM provisioning, so beyond the native e-commerce list there is nothing shown for a team that needs to build against the helpdesk. 1
The Agent Advocate
Shopify, WordPress, Prestashop, WiX and Magento are named, alongside claims of 40-plus integrations and 80-plus platform integrations — genuine breadth for an online shop, though it reads as shop plugins rather than CRM or order-management depth. We found no public information on a documented API with keys, webhooks or SSO; the only outbound flow shown is a contact export. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Forty-plus integrations are claimed with Shopify, WordPress, PrestaShop, Wix and Magento named, and contact export to any application or CRM system is stated — real reach into shop and CMS systems. We found no public information on a documented API with keys, webhooks, or SSO, so this stays at the native-integration level rather than a builder's API. 1
The Shop Operator
Shopify, PrestaShop, Magento, Wix and WordPress are named among 40-plus integrations with 80-plus further platform integrations, so the shop systems I depend on are covered; contact export to any CRM is also stated. But we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, SSO, or rate limits, and nothing on order context shown inside the conversation. 1
The Integrator
Shopify, WordPress, Prestashop, WiX and Magento are named among 40-plus integrations, with 80-plus further platform integrations claimed — a real catalogue of shop and CMS plugins. As the one who has to wire in a CRM and an identity provider: I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, rate limits, SSO or SCIM provisioning. The CRM story is exporting contacts to any application or CRM system, which is a file leaving the building rather than an integration. 1
The Skeptic
Shopify, WordPress, Prestashop, WiX and Magento are named, alongside counts of 40+ integrations and 80+ platform integrations, and contacts can be exported to "any application or CRM system" — a one-way export, not a live link. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, SSO, rate limits or a sandbox, and the named integrations are web and shop platforms rather than CRM, order-management or identity systems. 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 vendor presents as Smartsupp s.r.o., a Czech corporate form and member of the ABUGO Group, so the contracting entity looks European. Hosting location, data-centre provider, subprocessor list and whether vendor support can read customer instances are all unstated in the captured facts, and the fact that the subprocessor list is absent settles this at the lower end despite the European entity. 1
The Agent Advocate
The contracting entity carries a Czech legal form and a GDPR page is up, which points toward Europe, but that is the whole of it: we found no public information on hosting location, a named data-centre provider, a subprocessor list, or whether vendor support can read customer conversations. The captured pages simply do not answer where the archive lives. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages state nothing on hosting location, the seat of the contracting entity, named data-centre providers, or subprocessors, and we found no public information on whether vendor support can read a customer instance. The data privacy & GDPR page title is the only European signal, and a title is not a safeguard. 1
The Shop Operator
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on where hosting sits, which subprocessors touch the archive, or whether vendor support can read customer data — the captures name only a GDPR page and membership of the ABUGO Group. For a personal-data archive that leaves the whole chain unverified. 1
The Integrator
The contracting name Smartsupp s.r.o. and its Czech-style legal form suggest an EU company, and a data privacy page exists. I found no public information on hosting location, a named data-centre provider, a subprocessor list, or vendor support access to customer data; Member of ABUGO Group names a group without saying where it processes. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the jurisdiction of the contracting entity, a named data-centre provider, a published subprocessor list, or whether vendor support can read customer data. A GDPR page is not a substitute for an evidenced hosting and subprocessor chain, and the "Member of ABUGO Group" line names no jurisdiction. 1
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
A free account and a 14-day all-features trial with no credit card required are stated publicly, which is at least a known starting point. Beyond that I found no public information on per-agent prices, tier boundaries, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment, so an annual invoice for a given agent count cannot be computed from public pages at all. 1
The Agent Advocate
A free account and a 14-day all-features trial with no credit card are stated plainly — honest about the entry point. But we found no public information on paid tier prices, per-agent maths, billing period or VAT treatment, so a support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their headcount from these pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A free account and a fourteen-day all-features trial with no credit card are stated publicly, which is honest about the entry point. But we found no public information on paid tier prices, per-agent rates, billing periods, or term minimums — a support lead cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Shop Operator
A free account and a 14-day all-features trial with no credit card required are public, but we found no public information on per-agent prices, tiers, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment. A support lead cannot compute the annual invoice for their agent count from these pages. 1
The Integrator
A free account and a 14-day all-features trial with no credit card required are public, but that is where the numbers end. I found no public information on per-agent prices, tiers, billing period or which plan carries the AI assistant, so a support lead cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Skeptic
The only public price signals are a free account and a 14-day all-features trial with no credit card required; we found no public information on paid tiers, per-agent rates, billing periods, VAT treatment or minimum terms. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for any agent count from the captured page. 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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. 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.
- 38 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
- 29 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
- 13 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
- 10 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
- 7 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
- 5 support 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 hosting 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
- 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page smartsupp.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage help.smartsupp.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage help.smartsupp.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.smartsupp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.smartsupp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.smartsupp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.smartsupp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.smartsupp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.smartsupp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →