Customer Service & Helpdesk

Userlike

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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.

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Support Lead v1.0 · The Agent Advocate v1.0 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Shop Operator v1.0 · The Integrator v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 15 Sep 2026

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 Agent Advocate

Weighted verdict

Has answered tickets for six years and judges every tool by the hundredth reply, not the first. Wants search that finds the old thread, macros that save real keystrokes, and one screen rather than four tabs. Treats agent-activity dashboards as a smell.

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

Scored by The Agent Advocate

Ticketing, queues & SLA

How this is scored

The engine: how work is routed, prioritised, escalated and measured — and whether an agent can find the ticket they need among ten thousand.

0 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Channels in one queue

How this is scored

Email, chat, phone, portal, messengers and social — judged on what actually lands in the same queue with the same history, not on how many channel logos the marketing page carries.

0 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Knowledge base & deflection

How this is scored

Whether the product reduces the number of tickets as well as organising them: public help centre, article workflow, suggestions to agents and to customers.

0 — No knowledge base; 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Customer data protection

How this is scored

A ticket archive is personal data written by the data subject. Retention, deletion, access control, subject rights, 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations & API

How this is scored

The systems a helpdesk has to reach — CRM, shop, order management, identity — and whether the API is documented for building or gated behind a partner conversation.

0 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where the ticket archive lives, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch it, and whether vendor support can read customer data. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built 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

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

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 →