Customer Service & Helpdesk
Tiledesk
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Tiledesk · tiledesk.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Tiledesk at a glance
- Vendor
- Tiledesk
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Tiledesk 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Tiledesk, an open-core customer service and AI-agent platform from Italian vendor Tiledesk S.r.l., scored strongest on knowledge and self-service and integrations, both spanning 5 to 7: a documented hybrid semantic and full-text knowledge base with multilingual answers and an unanswered-questions API, and a REST API with webhooks, MCP, SSO and a native Shopify connection. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 27 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 27 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Tiledesk, an open-core customer service and AI-agent platform from Italian vendor Tiledesk S.r.l., scored strongest on knowledge and self-service and integrations, both spanning 5 to 7: a documented hybrid semantic and full-text knowledge base with multilingual answers and an unanswered-questions API, and a REST API with webhooks, MCP, SSO and a native Shopify connection. Ticketing core scores cluster at 4: routing is real, with departments, round-robin, pooled mode and webhook custom assignment, but we found no public information on SLA timers, priorities, escalation chains or ticket search, and the terms apply uptime and response commitments only where expressly included in a subscription, SLA or order form. Customer data protection scored 3 to 4: an Article 28 DPA and a no-AI-training commitment appear on paper, but we found no public information on retention periods, audit logs or a published subprocessor list. Sovereignty scores spread 4 to 6 as judges weighed the documented self-hosted path against unstated cloud hosting; pricing transparency scored 1, with only a 14-day free trial, no credit card required, shown publicly.
Speaks for it
- Hybrid semantic and full-text knowledge base with multilingual answers and an unanswered-questions API for spotting content gaps
- Documented REST API with Basic and JWT authentication, webhooks, MCP, SSO and a native Shopify connection, with rate limits stated as at least 200 requests per minute
- Genuine self-hosted path via Docker Compose, Kubernetes Helm and on-premises deployment, with local vector storage such as Qdrant
- Routing engine with departments in assigned or pooled mode, native round-robin, an unassigned pool and custom assignment via webhooks
- Article 28 GDPR Data Processing Agreement with stated controller and processor roles and a commitment not to train the vendor's general-purpose AI models on identifiable customer data
Held against it
- Terms apply uptime commitments, service credits and support response times only where expressly included in a subscription, SLA or order form
- We found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies
- We found no public information on where the cloud service hosts data, a data-centre provider or a published subprocessor list
- We found no public information on a stated retention period, an audit log of who opened which ticket, redaction or attachment handling
- Developer documentation states it was last updated two to three years ago, and the change policy permits API modification without advance notice
Best for
- You need the archive on your own infrastructure — Docker Compose, Kubernetes Helm and on-premises deployment behind the firewall, with local vector storage such as Qdrant, are documented
- Your engineering team builds its own tooling and wants a documented REST API with Basic and JWT authentication, webhooks and MCP to build against
- You want bot-led deflection — a Resolution bot type answering end users from the knowledge base before human involvement, with content gaps surfaced through unanswered questions
Avoid if
- You need SLA management out of the box — the terms apply uptime commitments, service credits and support response times only where expressly included in a subscription, SLA or order form, and we found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings or priorities
- You need agent telephony with call logging — the voice channel is documented as automated interaction without human intervention
- You depend on API stability — the change policy permits modification of API attributes and resources without advance notice
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Ticketing, queues & SLA | 2 of 5 |
| Channels in one queue | 3 of 5 |
| Knowledge base & deflection | 3 of 5 |
| Customer data protection | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 of 5 |
Ticketing, queues & SLA
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The engine: how work is routed, prioritised, escalated and measured — and whether an agent can find the ticket they need among ten thousand.
0 — A shared mailbox with labels; no ownership, no status model, no history beyond the thread.
3 — Tickets with assignment and open/closed status, but routing is manual, there are no SLA timers and search covers subject lines only.
5 — Queues with rules-based routing, priorities, a working status model, SLA timers with breach warnings, and full-text search across ticket bodies.
8 — Business-hours-aware SLA policies per queue or customer, escalation chains, macros and triggers, merge and split, and reporting on first-response and resolution time by agent and queue.
10 — The workload is managed rather than merely tracked: capacity-aware assignment, SLA per contract with reporting an account manager could show a customer, audit of every status change, and search that finds the ticket from a half-remembered phrase.
The Support Lead
Routing is real — round-robin per department with assigned and pooled modes, plus custom assignment logic built through webhooks — but that is where the evidence ends. I found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities or ticket search, and the terms make response-time and uptime commitments something you must expressly negotiate into a subscription rather than a product feature. 6 2 1
The Agent Advocate
Departments with round-robin assignment, an unassigned pool, canned responses in the API, and the ability to code your own assignment logic through webhooks give this a real engine underneath, not a shared mailbox. But we found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, escalation chains, merge and split, or full-text search across ticket bodies, and the terms state that uptime and response commitments apply only where expressly included in the relevant subscription. That lands between basic assignment and a properly managed queue, on the honest side of the middle. 6 2 11
The Data Protection Officer
Departments with assigned or pooled routing, a native round-robin through available agents, an unassigned pool and webhook-driven custom assignment give real ownership of a conversation. But I found no public information on SLA timers, priorities, escalation chains or first-response and resolution reporting, and the terms state that uptime and response commitments apply only where expressly included in the relevant subscription, SLA or Order Form. 6 2 1
The Shop Operator
Routing is real — departments with pooled or assigned modes, native round-robin, custom assignment logic you can build on webhooks, and an unassigned pool so nothing vanishes. But we found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, or search across ticket bodies, and the terms put any SLA commitment only where a separate agreement expressly says so. I could not run a measurable December queue on this without those timers. 6 2 1
The Integrator
Departments with assigned-versus-pooled routing, a documented round-robin native assignment, an unassigned pool and webhook-driven custom assignment give a workable routing base, with canned responses and reporting appearing as API areas and a capability line. We found no public information on SLA timers with breach warnings, priorities, escalation chains or full-text search across ticket bodies, and the terms state that uptime and support response commitments apply only where expressly included in a subscription, SLA or order form. 6 2 1
The Skeptic
Departments with round-robin and pooled assignment, an unassigned pool and per-department defaults are documented, and canned responses, tags and analytics appear as API resources. We found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, escalation chains or search across ticket bodies. The terms state that uptime commitments, service credits and support response times apply only where expressly included in the relevant subscription, SLA or order form, and custom assignment is left to webhook code the buyer writes. 2 6 11
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
Web chat, email, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS and voice all appear as channels, with a multi-channel message flow documented in the developer pages and handoff to humans described as carrying full context. Voice is documented as automation rather than telephony with call logging, and I found no public information on a customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets, or on messenger consent handling. 1 7 2
The Agent Advocate
Web chat, email, WhatsApp with inbound and outbound automation, Messenger, SMS and voice are all named, and the developer documentation includes a multi-channel message flow page suggesting these feed one system with shared lead and conversation records. What would make channel an implementation detail — telephony with call logging, a requester portal, stated consent handling for messengers — we found no public information on, and the multi-channel architecture page was last updated three years ago. 1 2 7 4
The Data Protection Officer
Web chat, email, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS and a voice channel are all named, and the developer documentation describes a single multi-channel message flow with conversations carrying a request across channels. I found no public information on telephony with call logging, on messenger consent handling, or on a customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets — and the voice channel is described as automated interaction without human intervention rather than agent telephony. 1 2 7
The Shop Operator
WhatsApp, Messenger, SMS, email, web chat and voice are all claimed, with WhatsApp doing inbound, outbound and template broadcasts, and the developer architecture shows a multi-channel message flow — though that page was last updated three years ago. The Shopify story from web chat to WhatsApp is exactly the one-queue setup I want to see. We found no public information on messenger consent handling, a customer portal where requesters see their own tickets, or telephony call logging into the conversation, so channel is not yet an implementation detail. 1 7 2
The Integrator
Web chat, email, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS and voice are all offered, a developer architecture page describes a multi-channel message flow feeding one engine, and human handoff is stated to carry full context. We found no public information on telephony call logging, consent handling for the messengers, or a customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets, and the multi-channel documentation page was last updated three years ago. 1 2 7
The Skeptic
The marketing page counts six channels — web, voice, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, SMS and email — but voice is described as automated interaction without human intervention, and we found no public information on telephony call logging, a customer portal or messenger consent handling. The developer page titled Multi Channel Message Flow was last updated three years ago and the captured content is no more than its title and an image reference. Nothing captured confirms that a customer's history follows them across channels, though a shared request and assignment model across departments is documented. 1 2 6 7
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 knowledge base is a genuine RAG engine — hybrid semantic and full-text search, multilingual answers, uploads in several formats, real-time and scheduled syncs — with article suggestions surfaced to agents by the copilot and an unanswered-questions API that points at identifying gaps. I found no public information on a public help centre with draft and publish workflow, review dates flagging stale content, or deflection reported as a number. 9 1 10
The Agent Advocate
The knowledge base is a genuine hybrid retrieval engine — full-text combined with semantic search, PDFs and Markdown ingested, multilingual answers, real-time or scheduled syncs — and the copilot surfaces relevant articles while an agent answers, with unanswered questions tracked as a resource for spotting gaps. We found no public information on an editorial workflow, versioning, review dates for stale content, or deflection reported as a number the team can act on. 9 1 10
The Data Protection Officer
The knowledge base behaves like a managed engine: hybrid and semantic search over PDF, DOC, HTML and Markdown, multilingual answers, scheduled syncs, article suggestions to agents from the copilot, and an API area with Question & Answer and Unanswered Questions — the raw material for gap identification. I found no public information on editorial workflow with versioning and approval, review dates that flag stale content, or deflection reported as a number the team can act on. 9 1 10
The Shop Operator
The RAG engine is the product here: hybrid and semantic search, multilingual answers, PDF/DOC/HTML/Markdown ingestion, scheduled syncs, an unanswered-questions API that names the gap, and a copilot pushing relevant articles to agents mid-conversation. Bots answering from the base before handoff is deflection machinery. But we found no public information on a public help centre, a draft-and-publish editorial workflow, article versioning, or reporting that tells me the ticket count actually fell. 9 1 10
The Integrator
The knowledge base is a hybrid semantic and full-text RAG engine with multilingual answers, real-time or scheduled content sync, an agent copilot surfacing relevant articles mid-conversation, and developer APIs exposing contents, question-and-answer and unanswered questions — which reads as gap tracking, with self-learning reintegration of extracted knowledge. We found no public information on editorial workflow: draft and publish states, review dates for stale content, versioning with approval, and deflection reported as a number a team can act on. 9 10 1
The Skeptic
Deflection is bot-shaped and evidenced: a Resolution bot type answers end users from the knowledge base before a human is involved, the AI copilot provides suggestions, relevant articles and contextual summaries to agents, and answers are multilingual. An unanswered-questions API exists to surface gaps, which is more than most show. We found no public information on editorial workflow, versioning, review dates, deflection reporting, or a human-facing public help centre — the knowledge base is presented entirely as a RAG engine feeding bots. 1 6 9 10
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 processing agreement on Article 28 terms is published and referenced from the privacy policy, GDPR and the Italian privacy code are cited, and the terms commit to deletion or anonymisation after termination and to no AI training on customer data. I found no public information on a stated retention period, an audit log of who opened which ticket, attachment handling, redaction, or a published subprocessor list. 2 3 4
The Agent Advocate
A Data Processing Agreement governed under Article 28, clearly stated controller and processor roles, privacy by design, no training of the vendor's own AI models on identifiable customer data, and deletion or anonymisation after termination are real commitments on paper. But we found no public information on a stated retention period, an executable per-requester deletion path, audit logs of who opened which ticket, or redaction of ticket content; permissions are described only as "advanced user permissions" and the customer is responsible for exporting its data before termination. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
A data processing agreement under Article 28 with a clear controller/processor split, a stated principle of privacy by design, no AI training on identifiable customer data, and deletion or anonymisation after termination are the right words on paper. But the retention period is only ever "agreed", never stated as a figure or shown executing per queue, and I found no public information on an audit log of who opened which ticket, redaction of ticket content, attachment handling, a documented path to erase a single requester's data, or whether the vendor's own support can open a customer ticket. The on-premises open-core option is genuine control, but it is control the buyer must exercise itself. 2 3 4 1
The Shop Operator
An Article 28 DPA is referenced and available, roles get one phrase — advanced user permissions — and data is deleted or anonymised after termination, with no AI training on identifiable customer data. However, there is no stated retention period, only an agreed one, and we found no public information on executable deletion of a single requester's data, an audit log of who opened which ticket, attachment handling, or a published subprocessor list. 2 3 4
The Integrator
A Data Processing Agreement under Article 28 is referenced, GDPR and the Italian privacy code are named, deletion or anonymisation after termination is stated, retention is limited to the agreed period, the vendor states it will not train its own general-purpose AI models on identifiable customer data, and SSO with advanced user permissions is claimed. We found no public information on automatic retention rules per queue, attachment handling, an audit log of who opened which ticket, documented support for access and erasure requests, or a published subprocessor list. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
A Data Processing Agreement pursuant to Article 28 is referenced as governing the processing, the controller and processor split is stated, deletion or anonymisation after termination is described, and the terms commit to not using identifiable customer data to train the vendor's own general-purpose AI models. What executes is less clear: we found no public information on a stated retention period, an audit log of who opened which ticket, redaction of ticket content, attachment handling or a published subprocessor list. Access control rests on a single 'advanced user permissions' line on the security page. 2 3 4
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
A documented REST API with authentication, a stated rate expectation of at least 200 requests per minute, webhooks for request events, MCP support, SSO, and native Shopify and OpenAI integrations. I found no public information on named CRM integrations, SCIM provisioning or a sandbox; developer docs were last updated two to three years ago and the change policy allows API modifications without advance notice. 12 11 1 4
The Agent Advocate
The REST API is documented in depth — JSON and SSL only, Basic and JWT authentication, versioned endpoints, rate limits stated as at least 200 requests per minute, webhooks on request events — and Shopify, OpenAI, MCP and SSO are all named. Against that, we found no public information on CRM integrations or SCIM provisioning, the documented change policy permits modification of the API without advance notice, and the API documentation was last updated three years ago, which is a maintenance smell. 12 11 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
A documented versioned REST API with Basic and JWT authentication, a stated rate expectation of at least 200 requests per minute, webhooks, MCP, SSO, and named Shopify and native OpenAI integrations. However, the API terms allow modification of resources without advance notice, and the documentation pages themselves state they were last updated two to three years ago; I found no public information on CRM integrations, SCIM provisioning or a sandbox. 12 11 4 1
The Shop Operator
The REST API is genuinely documented — authentication methods, JSON-only SSL endpoints, a v3 base, rate limits of at least 200 requests per minute with 429 on excess — and webhooks plus MCP are real, with Shopify named for the shop side and SSO available. But we found no public information on named CRM integrations, SCIM provisioning, or a sandbox, the API may change without advance notice, and the main API docs were last updated three years ago, which worries me about maintenance. 12 11 1 4
The Integrator
This is the part I can actually build against: a documented REST API covering requests, messages, leads, knowledge bases and more, with Basic and JWT authentication, a published expectation of at least 200 requests per minute and HTTP 429 on excess, webhooks carrying request events with a forkable sample app, MCP support, a native Shopify connection, SSO, and self-hosted Docker Compose and Helm distributions I can test on my own infrastructure. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhook retry behaviour or a sandbox, the REST API docs were last updated three years ago, and the terms reserve the right to modify API attributes and resources without advance notice — the opposite of a deprecation policy. 12 11 6 2 1 4
The Skeptic
The REST API is documented with authentication methods, JSON-only and SSL-only rules, status codes and rate limits of at least 200 requests per minute answered by HTTP 429; webhooks fire on request updates, MCP is offered, and SSO plus native OpenAI and Shopify integrations are named. The main REST documentation page states it was last updated three years ago and the knowledge base API page two years ago, and the change policy allows the API's attributes and resources to be modified without advance notice. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, a sandbox or a named CRM connector, and the VoIP claim is a marketing sentence rather than a documented integration. 1 4 10 11 12
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
Tiledesk S.r.l. is an Italian company with offices in Puglia, Italian governing law and exclusive jurisdiction in Lecce, and there is a real self-hosted path — Docker Compose, Kubernetes, on-premises behind the firewall, local vector storage — for a buyer who needs the archive on their own infrastructure. Where the cloud service is hosted is not stated, and I found no public information on a published subprocessor list or a named data-centre provider. 9 2 1 6
The Agent Advocate
The contracting entity is Tiledesk S.r.l. with Italian VAT and REA numbers, registered offices in Soleto and Galatina, governed by Italian and EU law with exclusive jurisdiction in Lecce — a clearly European vendor — and Docker Compose, Kubernetes and local vector storage options let a buyer keep the archive on their own infrastructure. But we found no public information on where the cloud service hosts customer data, and no published subprocessor list, so the chain beyond the vendor itself is dark. 9 2 1 6
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Tiledesk S.r.l. under Italian and EU law with exclusive jurisdiction in Lecce, and the open-core platform can be self-hosted via Docker Compose or Kubernetes with local vector storage — the archive can live on the buyer's own infrastructure. Against that, the terms only state that subprocessors may be engaged and I found no published list, the cloud service's data residency is unstated, and the independently sourced sovereignty attributes returned unknown for entity jurisdiction, ownership, residency and subprocessor exposure even though the vendor's own footer names an Italian company with an Italian VAT number. 9 2 1 6
The Shop Operator
The contracting entity is Tiledesk S.r.l. in Italy, with Italian governing law and the courts of Lecce, and the on-premises, self-managed option with local vector storage like Qdrant means the archive can live on my own infrastructure — that is the sovereign end of the scale. For the cloud path, though, we found no public information on where hosting runs, a named data-centre provider, published certification, or a subprocessor list, only that subprocessors may be engaged under the DPA. 9 2 1
The Integrator
The contracting entity is Tiledesk S.r.l. in Italy, governed by Italian and EU law with exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of Lecce and GDPR, DSA and AI Act references in the terms, and there is a real self-hosted path — open core, Docker Compose, Kubernetes Helm, even local vector storage such as Qdrant — for a buyer who needs the archive on their own infrastructure. We found no public information on where the cloud service hosts customer data, the data-centre provider, company ownership, or a published subprocessor list, so the cloud chain cannot be verified from these pages. 9 2 1 6
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Tiledesk S.r.l. with an Italian VAT number, Italian governing law and exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of Lecce, under GDPR and the Italian privacy code. The self-hosted path is more than a claim: Docker Compose and Kubernetes Helm distributions and local vector storage such as Qdrant are documented, which puts the archive on the buyer's own infrastructure. For the cloud path we found no public information on hosting location, a named data-centre provider, a subprocessor list or certification. 1 2 3 6 9
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 captured pricing facts are a 14-day free trial with no credit card required, VAT-exclusive fees, 30-day non-renewal notice on annual terms, and possible usage overage. I found no public information on per-agent prices, tier boundaries, or which tier carries the channels or SLA features — a support lead could not produce an annual invoice for their agent count from these pages. 1 2
The Agent Advocate
We found no public price figures on the captured pages — no per-agent number, no tier prices, no add-on prices — so a support lead cannot compute an annual invoice of any kind. What is public is the mechanics around the price: a 14-day free trial with no credit card required, fees exclusive of VAT, annual auto-renewal with 30 days' non-renewal notice, possible overage charges, and suspension of service after fifteen days unpaid. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public prices for any tier in the captured pages — only a 14-day free trial without credit card, and contractual mechanics such as fees exclusive of VAT, annual auto-renewal with 30-day non-renewal notice, non-cancellable commitments and possible usage overage charges. A support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their agent count from public pages alone. 1 2
The Shop Operator
No price appears in anything I was shown — no per-agent figure, no tier table, no add-on numbers — only a 14-day trial without credit card and contract mechanics such as VAT-exclusive fees, possible usage overage charges and 30-day non-renewal notice. I cannot compute an annual invoice for my agent count from the captured pages. 1 2
The Integrator
The captured pages show a 14-day free trial with no credit card and commercial mechanics — fees exclusive of VAT, automatic annual renewal with 30 days' notice, possible charges for usage exceeding subscription limits — but not a single price figure. We found no public information on per-agent prices, tiers, or where channels and support levels begin, so a support lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their agent count from these pages. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only number we found in public is '14-day free trial No credit card required Cancel anytime'; we found no public information on per-agent prices, tier names, or the tier where any channel or SLA feature begins, so an annual invoice cannot even be started. The terms supply commercial small print with no figures: fees are exclusive of VAT, monthly and annual subscriptions auto-renew, non-renewal needs thirty days' notice, commitments are non-cancellable mid-term, and suspension can follow fifteen days unpaid. We found no public information on whether the AI copilot or the human handoff is included or metered in any tier. 1 2
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 |
Questions about Tiledesk
Is Tiledesk European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Tiledesk is based.
Where does Tiledesk store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026.
Does Tiledesk have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Tiledesk?
As of 27 Oct 2026, the panel rates Zendesk (3.5/5), HubSpot Service Hub (3/5) and Crisp (3/5) highest among the other 32 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: Tiledesk alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 27 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 5 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
- 3 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
- 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 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap developer.tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap developer.tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap developer.tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap developer.tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap developer.tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap developer.tiledesk.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →