Customer Service & Helpdesk
Userlike
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Userlike UG · www.userlike.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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Userlike, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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
This is a conversation product, not a ticket engine: 'Erweitertes Routing' is locked in the Enterprise tier and workflow automation is a metered add-on, but the evidence says nothing about SLA timers, breach warnings, priorities, status models or resolution-time reporting. Routing evidence lifts it just above manual, but I cannot run my team's SLA on a page that never mentions a timer. 2 1
The Agent Advocate
The whole sheet speaks of 'Unterhaltungen', not tickets: routing appears only as an Enterprise feature ('Erweitertes Routing') and automation is a metered workflows add-on. Not one line covers assignment, ticket status, SLA timers, macros, merge/split, search or first-response reporting — at ten thousand threads that's the engine I need to see, so this sits below the anchor-3 rung, which at least has ownership and open/closed. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
This is a conversation product, not a ticketing engine: routing appears only as 'Erweitertes Routing' behind the Enterprise tier, and 'Workflows' automation exists as a metered add-on, but the evidence is silent on SLA timers, priorities, a status model, full-text search, merge/split and any first-response or resolution reporting. Slightly above manual-routing-only because rule-based routing and workflow automation are evidenced at the top tier. 2 1
The Shop Operator
This is a messaging inbox, not a ticket engine: routing exists only as an 'Erweitertes Routing' label in the unpriced Enterprise tier and automation is a metered addon (€50/month per 1000 workflow runs). Nothing in the evidence evidences SLA timers, a status model, assignment, escalation, merge/split, or search across ticket bodies — the things I need to work ten thousand 'where is my parcel' tickets. 2 1
The Integrator
A messaging tool, not a ticketing engine: the evidence shows 'Erweitertes Routing' gated to Enterprise and vague 'Workflows über Ihre Systeme hinweg', but nothing on assignment, a status model, SLA timers, escalation, merge/split, or search. Even anchor-3 features are only hinted at via routing — 'Unbegrenzte Unterhaltungen' is a quota line, not a work-tracking model. SLA is entirely absent from every captured page. 2 1
The Skeptic
No SLA, status model, priorities, macros, merge/split, search or first-response reporting appear anywhere in the evidence; all that exists is 'Erweitertes Routing' locked behind Enterprise and generic 'workflows'. That is a messaging inbox with routing, not a ticketing engine, and nothing evidences ticket ownership or even open/closed states. 2 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
Chat, email, WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, SMS and custom channels, all claimed 'zentral an einem Ort' — genuinely broad on messengers. But there is no requester portal where a customer sees their own tickets, no telephony with call logging (video calls are not a phone queue), and WhatsApp consent handling is nowhere stated. 2 1
The Agent Advocate
Chat, E-Mail and WhatsApp plus Facebook Messenger, Telegram, SMS and custom channels, all 'zentral an einem Ort' — that's the one-screen promise I actually care about. But the anchor-8 items are absent: no telephony with call logging (video calls and screen sharing are not a phone system), no customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets, and WhatsApp consent handling is never stated even though campaigns are sold on top of it. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Website chat, email, WhatsApp, Telegram, SMS and Facebook Messenger all land in one place ('Verwalten Sie Gespräche über Chat, E-Mail, WhatsApp und mehr – zentral an einem Ort'), which exceeds the email-plus-portal-and-chat anchor. But telephony with call logging, a customer portal, and stated consent handling for the messengers are all absent from the evidence — video calls in Pro is not voice telephony. 2 1
The Shop Operator
WhatsApp is a first-class citizen — 10 to 20 numbers by plan plus proactive campaigns — and chat, email, Telegram, Facebook Messenger and SMS land in one central place, which is exactly the one-queue test I apply. But no voice telephony (video calls are not a phone line), no customer portal, no stated consent handling for messengers, and no named shop or order system to put the order next to the conversation. 2 1
The Integrator
Chat, email, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, SMS and custom channels all land 'zentral an einem Ort', plus WhatsApp campaigns and video calls — this is the vendor's home turf. Missing for rubric level 8: no telephony integration with call logging, no customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets, and messenger consent handling is never stated. One shared conversation with one history is claimed, but voice remains a gap. 2 1
The Skeptic
Chat, E-Mail, WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, SMS and custom channels are all claimed to land 'zentral an einem Ort', which answers the question I actually ask — but only at inbox level. The 8-level items are silent: no telephony with call logging (video calls are not that), no stated consent handling for WhatsApp, and no customer portal where a requester sees their own tickets. 2 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
No knowledge base feature appears anywhere in the evidence — the only help centre mentioned is Userlike's own support resources. The '89% AI Agent-Lösungsrate' is precisely the claim I would check against the queue on a Monday morning, and even taken at face value, deflection-by-bot with no articles, no review dates and no deflection reporting is not knowledge management. 1
The Agent Advocate
No help centre, no articles, no editorial workflow, no deflection reporting — the evidence's only deflection story is AI agents and per-plan chatbot counts with a vendor-claimed '89% AI Agent-Lösungsrate'. Bots may swallow tickets, but there is no knowledge asset here to manage, and a marketing claim is not a number a team can act on. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
No knowledge-base product is evidenced anywhere — the only 'Hilfe-Center' in the evidence is the vendor's own support docs, and the AI agent's '89 % AI Agent-Lösungsrate' is a deflection mechanism, not a managed knowledge asset. No articles, no editorial workflow, no versioning, no article-to-ticket link: the answers live in an AI agent and in agents' heads. 1
The Shop Operator
No knowledge base feature is evidenced at all — no articles, no workflow, no versioning, no suggestions to agents or customers; the only deflection evidence is the marketing claim of an '89 % AI Agent-Lösungsrate', which is a number I can neither verify nor act on. Even the help centre named in the evidence is the vendor's own, not a product feature. 1
The Integrator
No customer-facing knowledge base is evidenced anywhere — the only 'Hilfe-Center' is Userlike's own support footer. The 89% AI-agent resolution rate is deflection by bot, not a managed knowledge asset: no articles, no editorial workflow, no versioning, no article-to-ticket link exists in the evidence. One point above zero for AI volume reduction; there is otherwise no knowledge product to score. 2 1
The Skeptic
The 'Hilfe-Center' and 'FAQs' in the support links are Userlike's own documentation, not a product feature; there is no evidence of articles, editorial workflow, versioning, or deflection reporting. The 89% AI-agent resolution rate is a bot claim doing deflection of a sort, but it is not a managed knowledge asset and nothing links it to content or reporting. 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
German hosting, a GDPR claim and ISO 27001 certification give a security posture, but posture is not execution: no DPA, no stated retention period, no deletion path, no agent roles or queue visibility, no audit log, nothing on attachment handling. For an archive full of data-subject-written content, that is thin. 1
The Agent Advocate
GDPR-compliant, developed and hosted in Germany, ISO 27001 certified — that's posture, not practice. The evidence is silent on retention periods, deletion paths, agent roles and queue visibility, audit logs, a DPA and attachment handling, which is nearly the anchor-0 checklist; a German certificate buys a point, nothing more. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence offers exactly two things: 'DSGVO-konforme Chat-Lösung – entwickelt und gehostet in Deutschland' and ISO 27001 — both promises, neither a mechanism. Nothing on retention that executes, no deletion path, no published DPA, no agent roles or queue visibility, no audit log of who read which conversation, no redaction, and no statement on whether vendor support can open a ticket; for a product whose entire archive is customers typing their problems into a chat window, that silence decides this score. 1
The Shop Operator
GDPR-compliant German hosting and ISO 27001 certification are security claims, not execution: the evidence is silent on retention periods, deletion paths, agent roles and queue visibility, a published DPA, audit logs, and attachment handling. A ticket archive is personal data, and nothing here shows a data subject's data can actually be erased on request. 1
The Integrator
ISO 27001 and 'DSGVO-konform – entwickelt und gehostet in Deutschland' are posture claims, not execution. The evidence is silent on a DPA (even on request), retention periods, agent roles and queue visibility, deletion paths, audit logs, attachment handling and subject-rights support — every anchor-5 operational requirement is unevidenced. That silence is information. 1
The Skeptic
German hosting and an ISO 27001 certificate are real artefacts, but everything this criterion wants to see execute — retention periods, a deletion path, a DPA, agent roles, an audit log, attachment handling — is silent. 'DSGVO-konform' is a promise, not a mechanism. 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
An API exists in two flavours — 'Basis-API-Zugriff' in Pro, 'Voller API-Zugriff' in Enterprise — with SSO/SCIM at the top tier and workflows reaching across systems, which is more than a read-only API. But integrations are named only as categories (CRM, ERP, 'interne Tools'): no named systems, no webhooks, no rate limits, no sandbox. 2 1
The Agent Advocate
An API exists (basic on Pro, 'Voller API-Zugriff' on Enterprise), SSO/SCIM sits at the top tier, and 'CRM, ERP, interne Tools' is offered with a workflows add-on. But no integration is named, no webhooks, no rate limits, no sandbox — a category list is not a maintained integration, and Enterprise-gating the full API is its own cost. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
An API exists but is tiered ('Basis-API-Zugriff' in Pro, 'Voller API-Zugriff' only in Enterprise), SSO/SCIM appears at Enterprise, and integration targets are named only as categories — 'CRM, ERP, interne Tools' — with no named systems, no webhooks, no documented rate limits and no sandbox. Read-mostly with gating sits between the anchors; the SCIM provisioning is the one concrete bidirectional signal. 2 1
The Shop Operator
An API exists but is tiered ('Basis-API-Zugriff' in Pro, 'Voller API-Zugriff' in Enterprise), integrations are listed only as categories — CRM, ERP, interne Tools — with no named system, and there is no evidence of webhooks, rate limits, a sandbox, or order context shown inside the ticket. As a shop operator I care most about the shop connection, and no shop system is named anywhere. 2 1
The Integrator
The word 'API' appears once in a resources footer, tiered as 'Basis-API-Zugriff' at Pro and 'Voller API-Zugriff' at Enterprise — no webhooks, no documented rate limits, no sandbox, and no named CRM, shop or IdP integration, only categories ('CRM, ERP, interne Tools'). SCIM/SSO exists but is locked inside the unpriced Enterprise tier, and I cannot tell whether 'Workflows über Ihre Systeme hinweg' is a documented contract or a partner conversation. As the one wiring this into a CRM, a shop and a pre-existing IdP, I'd be negotiating instead of building. 2 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
A German contracting entity (Lime Connect (Userlike) GmbH, HRB 73211) with hosting and development in Germany as standard is the right baseline, and ISO 27001 helps. It stops at 5 because no subprocessor list is published and the WhatsApp/Meta dependency is non-EU processing with no stated safeguard or legal basis. 2 1
The Agent Advocate
German entity in a German register (GmbH, HRB 73211), developed and hosted in Germany, ISO 27001 — hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, so the pitch holds. But no data-centre provider is named, no subprocessor list is published, and WhatsApp/Meta is plainly in the chain without being declared; note the sovereignty pipeline itself recorded no attributes, so everything here is the vendor's own claim. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
German hosting and development as standard, a German contracting entity (Lime Connect (Userlike) GmbH, HRB 73211) and ISO 27001 certification are real and better than an EU-option vendor — but no subprocessor list is published, and the WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger channels pull Meta into the chain (the pricing even itemises a 'Meta-Gebühr') with no named legal basis or safeguard anywhere in the evidence. EU core with an unexplained non-EU leg is precisely the anchor this lands on. 2 1
The Shop Operator
A German contracting entity (Lime Connect (Userlike) GmbH, HRB 73211) with hosting and development in Germany as the standard, plus ISO 27001, puts the core in the EU. But the subprocessor list is absent and the data-centre provider is unnamed — the anchor treats a missing subprocessor list as a 3-level signal — so this sits between anchors, and nothing documents whether vendor support can read customer instances. 2 1
The Integrator
A German contracting entity with a Handelsregister number (Lime Connect (Userlike) GmbH, HRB 73211) plus hosting and development in Germany as standard clears rubric level 5. But no data-centre provider is named and no subprocessor list is published — glaring when WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger necessarily route conversations through Meta. The pipeline records 'no sovereignty attributes on record', so this rests on the vendor's own pages alone. 2 1
The Skeptic
German contracting entity (HRB 73211) with hosting and development in Germany, plus ISO 27001, is the right start and above the anchor-5 floor. But the sovereignty pipeline itself records 'no attributes', no data-centre provider is named, and the only subprocessor visible is Meta surfacing sideways in the WhatsApp campaigns price — a US processor with no published list and no explained safeguard. 2 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
Real numbers for nearly everything: €0 Free, Pro ab 87 €/Monat, Enterprise on request, and add-ons priced including usage-metered workflow runs and WhatsApp campaigns, with VAT treatment stated. It falls short of an 8 because 'ab 87 €/Monat' with a 3-seat minimum never tells me whether that is per seat or per plan, and billing period and minimum term are unstated — I cannot compute the annual invoice for twelve agents from this page alone. 2
The Agent Advocate
Free at €0, Pro 'ab 87 €/Monat' with min 3 seats, four add-ons priced down to metered WhatsApp campaigns at €20 per 1000 messages plus Meta fee, and VAT treatment stated ('zzgl. MwSt.'). But the invoice isn't computable: 'ab' leaves per-seat maths ambiguous, billing period and minimum term are unstated, and the tier holding full API, advanced routing and SCIM/SSO is 'Auf Anfrage' — rubric level 5 almost exactly. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Public tier cards with seat minimums (Free 1 seat, Pro from 87 € with min 3, Enterprise min 5), priced add-ons for AI agent, AI copilot, WhatsApp campaigns and workflow runs, and an explicit VAT note ('Preise zzgl. MwSt.') are genuinely computable in outline. But 'Ab 87 €/Monat' is from-pricing without per-agent maths, billing period and minimum term are unstated, and Enterprise is 'Auf Anfrage' — a support lead cannot compute the exact annual invoice from these pages alone. 2
The Shop Operator
Free (€0, 1 seat), Pro (ab €87/month, min 3 seats) and every major addon are publicly priced with VAT treatment and monthly billing stated, even the usage-metered WhatsApp campaigns (ab €20/month plus Meta fee per 1000 messages). But Enterprise — where SCIM/SSO and advanced routing live — is 'Auf Anfrage', and 'ab 87 €' does not say whether it is per seat or per contract, so I cannot compute my annual invoice for twelve agents from these pages alone. 2
The Integrator
Real numbers exist for Free (0€), Pro (from 87€/month, min 3 seats) and four add-ons including usage-metered WhatsApp campaigns, with VAT treatment stated ('Preise zzgl. MwSt.') — above the unpriced-bundle anchor. But 'Ab' pricing without per-seat maths, no stated billing period or minimum term, and SCIM/SSO, advanced routing and organisations locked in an 'Auf Anfrage' Enterprise tier mean I cannot compute my actual annual invoice from these pages. 2
The Skeptic
Add-ons are priced down to the meter — €20 per 1000 campaign messages plus Meta fee, €50 per 1000 workflow runs — and VAT treatment is stated, which is more than most. But 'Ab 87 €/Monat' for Pro never says per seat (while the copilot line does say 'pro Nutzer'), no minimum term is stated, and SCIM/SSO plus full API sit in an unpriced Enterprise tier, so the real invoice is not computable from these pages. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Incorporated in DE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 31 Aug 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. The register entry names no court or city; the DE code is derived from the German GmbH legal form and the HRB register designation, corroborated by the data-privacy page's "in Deutschland gegründetes Unternehmen".
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. 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.
- 49 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
- 23 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
- 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
- 5 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 subprocessors 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. 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 homepage www.userlike.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.userlike.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage connect.lime-technologies.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Customer data protection — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.lime-connect.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →