Customer Service & Helpdesk
Zendesk
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Zendesk, Inc. · www.zendesk.de
Compare with Freshdesk → Compare with Intercom → 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
Zendesk's bench profile is lopsided: channel coverage and native data-protection tooling carry it; workflow depth, integration evidence and sovereignty do not. Judges scored omnichannel at 6-7 and customer data protection at 6-8, crediting email, messaging/live chat, telephony, a customer portal and community forums, with omnichannel routing from Suite Team, plus manual and automatic redaction (credit-card numbers down to logs and database entries), subject-rights tooling and a published subprocessor list. Elsewhere the evidence runs thin: ticketing, queues & SLA and knowledge base & deflection both span 4-6 — SLA timers, ticket search and editorial workflow appear nowhere — and integrations sit at 3-5 with not one named connector. Sovereignty holds at 3-4: the contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc. and EEA hosting is one option among US, AU and JP on AWS. Pricing transparency scores 5-7 — three tiers at 19, 55 and 115 € per agent monthly, billed annually, but Suite Enterprise reads 'Vertrieb kontaktieren'. flagged splits flagged none above threshold; weighted totals run 4.7-5.7, Shop Operator highest.
Speaks for it
- Omnichannel routing, messaging/live chat and telephony ship from Suite Team, with a customer portal and community forums also listed.
- Native manual and automatic redaction, including credit-card numbers in logs and database entries.
- Subject-rights tools for access, rectification, portability, deletion and objection, plus a published subprocessor list with names and locations.
- Public per-agent prices for three tiers (19/55/115 €, billed annually) and three add-ons (82/50/50 €).
- A 14-day trial with no credit card, plus a 6-month startup trial of the Zendesk Suite for up to 50 agents.
Held against it
- SLA timers, breach warnings, escalation chains and ticket search appear nowhere in the evidence.
- Not one integration is named — no CRM, shop or IdP — and webhooks, rate limits and SCIM are unmentioned.
- The contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc., and EEA is one hosting option among US, AU and JP regions on AWS.
- Configurable retention, data masking and access logs sit in a paid add-on, with audit logs only on Enterprise and Enterprise Plus.
- Suite Enterprise has no public price ('Vertrieb kontaktieren'), and VAT treatment and minimum terms are unstated.
Best for
- You support customers across email, chat, telephony and a portal and want omnichannel routing from the 55 € Suite Team tier.
- You need documented redaction and subject-rights tooling for a privacy or DSR review and can budget for the advanced add-on.
- You want a mostly computable invoice and a low-commitment look — three priced tiers plus a 14-day, no-credit-card trial.
Avoid if
- You run contractual SLAs and need timers, breach warnings or escalation chains — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must connect a CRM, shop system or identity provider — the ecosystem claim names no tool and webhooks, rate limits and SCIM go unmentioned.
- EU residency is a hard requirement — EEA is one of four hosting options under contracting entity Zendesk, Inc.
- You must budget the top tier or the advanced data-privacy add-on up front — neither carries a public number on the captured pages.
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
Ticket distribution, automations/triggers and skill-based routing are named, so routing is beyond manual. But nothing in the evidence evidences SLA timers, breach warnings, escalation chains or search behaviour — the exact machinery I run my SLA on — so it sits between the anchors. 1 2
The Agent Advocate
The engine bones are there at the entry tier — ticket distribution, triggers and automations, vorformulierte Antworten (that's macros) — and skills-based distribution shows up at Professional. But the evidence says not one word about SLA timers, breach warnings, escalation chains, merge/split, or search; after six years, if I can't pull the half-remembered thread out of ten thousand, the rest is decoration. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Routing is real — 'Omnichannel-Verteilung' at Team tier, skills-based distribution at Professional, macros ('Vorformulierte Antworten'), triggers and dashboards are all listed. But the evidence is silent on SLA timers, escalation chains, merge/split and search, and the audit of every status change I'd want on the compliance side appears only as Enterprise-plan audit logs [E3 via E2 features]. 1 2
The Shop Operator
Triggers, automations, skills-based distribution, prewritten replies and approval workflows are confirmed from the plan listings — routing is clearly beyond manual. But nowhere does the evidence evidence an SLA timer, breach warning, full-text search, priorities or ticket merge/split, and those are the clock and the finder I run a ten-thousand-ticket December queue on. 2 3
The Integrator
Rules-based routing is real — triggers, automations, skills-based distribution, canned responses and dashboards are listed features — so well past the manual-routing anchor. But the evidence never mentions SLA timers, priorities, merge/split or ticket search; for a product of this ambition, an SLA policy that doesn't surface anywhere in the captured pages is absence, not oversight, which caps it below the 5 anchor. 2
The Skeptic
Automations and triggers ship in the cheapest tier and skills-based routing arrives at Professional, so routing is more than manual — but the word 'SLA' appears on no tier anywhere: no timers, no breach warnings, no escalation chains, no search claims beyond dashboards being 'preconfigured'. That lands between rubric level 3 and rubric level 5, and the AI triage ('Intelligente Einschätzung') sits in the tier you have to call sales for. 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
Email, messaging/live chat, telephony, a customer portal and community forums are all named with 'Omnichannel-Verteilung' as a stated feature, which covers the one-queue claim. What's missing is the fine print: no messenger consent handling, no call logging, and no explicit statement that one history follows the customer across channels. 1 2
The Agent Advocate
Telefonie, Messaging/Live-Chat, a Kundenportal and 'Omnichannel-Verteilung' are all bundled at Suite Team, and the Contact Center pitch promises voice and digital in one platform 'ohne Middleware'. Missing is the fine print that separates the anchors: no call-logging statement, no consent handling for messengers, and 'one history across channels' is homepage wording, not evidence. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Email, live chat, telephony, messaging, community forums and a customer portal are all evidenced, with omnichannel routing and a 'unified platform across voice and digital channels' claim pointing at one queue. Held back from full marks because no messenger is named and no consent handling is stated anywhere — precisely the page an auditor turns to first. 1 2
The Shop Operator
Suite Team puts omnichannel routing, messaging, live chat and telephony in one plan, the Contact Center pitch is a unified voice+digital platform, and a customer portal is in the feature list — solidly above the three-channel anchor. But no messenger is ever named — WhatsApp appears nowhere — and consent handling and the one-conversation-one-history claim are not evidenced, which is exactly the test I judge by. 1 2
The Integrator
Telephony, messaging/live chat and a customer portal are all evidenced with 'Omnichannel-Verteilung' in Suite Team, plus a unified Voice/Contact Center module. No messenger is named with its consent handling, and one-history-across-channels is asserted as routing rather than evidenced, so I stop short of the 8 anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
I count the logos — email, messaging/live chat, telephony, voice, community forums, customer portal — and 'Omnichannel-Verteilung' from Suite Team at least claims one queue. But a logo is not a capability: no messenger is named, consent handling is never mentioned, call logging is never stated, and nothing evidences that one history follows the customer across channels — that is rubric level 5 plus unproven telephony and portal, so 6. 1 2
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
A hosted Guide help centre demonstrably exists and Enterprise names 'Automatische Hilfe', so there is a public KB with hints of suggestions. But editorial workflow, versioning, stale-flagging and deflection reporting are nowhere in the evidence, and the '80% automation rate' is a homepage claim, not a number I could act on. 1 2 3
The Agent Advocate
There's a real help-centre product — Guide with custom domains and automatic TLS — plus Wissensdatenbank at Team tier and 'KI Automatische Hilfe' at Enterprise, which smells like suggestion-before-submit. But nothing on editorial workflow, draft/publish, multilingual or which articles actually deflect; the '80% Automatisierungsrate' on the homepage is a boast, not a deflection number I can act on. 3 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
A knowledge base, community forums and a public Guide help centre with custom-domain TLS exist, and AI Agents plus 'Automatische Hilfe' automate answering with claims of up to 80% automation. But nothing on editorial workflow, versioning, article-to-ticket linkage or deflection reporting — knowledge is present, not managed. 1 3
The Shop Operator
A public Guide help centre is confirmed (free TLS on custom domains) and the AI agents claim up to 80% automation with Vimeo at 30–40% — a deflection number of sorts. What's missing is the article side: no editorial workflow, versioning, multilingual support or stale-content flags, and nothing ties a deflected ticket to the article that deflected it. 1 3
The Integrator
A knowledge base and a help centre with custom domains and free TLS are confirmed, and 'KI Automatische Hilfe' hints at suggestions. But editorial workflow, versioning, review dates, article-to-ticket linking and deflection reporting appear nowhere — deflection is only implied by an 80%-automation marketing figure — so this sits between a basic article list and a managed knowledge asset. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
'Wissensdatenbank' is a bullet on the features list and a Suite Team line item, with community forums alongside and a vague 'KI Automatische Hilfe' locked in the unpriced Enterprise tier. Beyond the name, the evidence is silent on editorial workflow, article-ticket linking, agent suggestions, multilingual content and any deflection number — a module named is not a workflow evidenced. 1 2
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
This is genuinely solid: manual and automatic redaction including credit cards in logs and database entries, a deletion policy, subject-rights tools for access and erasure, and a published subprocessor list. I knock it back from 8 because the compliance-grade pieces — configurable retention, masking, access logs — sit in a paid add-on, and audit logs only arrive at Enterprise plans. 3
The Agent Advocate
This is where the evidence is dense: manual redaction of ticket comments and secure attachment deletion, automatic credit-card stripping down to logs and database entries, documented subject-rights tooling for access through deletion, and a published subprocessor list. It loses ground because the strong parts are paywalled — configurable retention, masking and access logs sit in a paid add-on, audit logs are Enterprise-only — so the default tenant gets less than the brochure implies. 3
The Data Protection Officer
Redaction is genuinely native and executable — manual redaction of comments, secure attachment deletion, and automatic credit-card redaction down to logs and database entries — with documented subject-rights tooling (access, rectification, deletion, objection) and a published subprocessor list. But the configurable retention policies, data masking and access logs sit in a paid add-on, audit logs begin only at Enterprise, and the evidence never answers whether Zendesk's own support can open a customer ticket. 3
The Shop Operator
This executes rather than promises: manual and automatic redaction (ticket comments, credit-card numbers, secure attachment deletion), privacy tools covering access, erasure, portability and objection, a service-data deletion policy, published subprocessor list and audit logs. The sting is that configurable retention, masking and access logs sit in a paid add-on and audit logs behind Enterprise, so the protection is tier-gated rather than standard. 3
The Integrator
Manual and automatic redaction (including attachments, logs and database entries), subject-rights tools for access and erasure, a deletion policy and a published subprocessor list are all concretely evidenced. But configurable retention, masking, access logs sit in a paid add-on and audit logs only exist on Enterprise plans — the capability is real but paywalled rather than standard, which is exactly what I'd probe in a DPA review. 2 3
The Skeptic
The native parts are real — manual and automatic redaction (credit cards scrubbed from comments, logs and database entries), documented DSR tooling, login-gated attachments and a published subprocessor list. But the parts a data-protection audit would actually ask for are paywalled: configurable retention, masking, PII redaction and access logs all sit in the 'Erweiterter Datenschutz und Sicherheit' add-on, audit logs start at Enterprise, and no default retention period or vendor-support-access statement appears anywhere. 3
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 (the Support API is an audit-log source) and an 'App Builder' is named at Professional, but the evidence names not a single CRM, shop or identity integration and says nothing about webhooks, rate limits or API documentation. For a helpdesk that has to reach the order system, that's a marketing line, not evidence. 1 2 3
The Agent Advocate
APIs and a developer area exist, there's an App Builder and an Enterprise sandbox, and SAML/OIDC SSO is confirmed — but the evidence never names a single integration, no CRM, no shop, and is silent on webhooks, rate limits and SCIM. 'Integrieren Sie Ihre bevorzugten Tools' is a logo wall, not a stack. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
'APIs und Entwickler:innen', an AI App Builder and a sandbox environment are evidenced, with SAML/OIDC SSO on the security page. Not a single named integration — no CRM, no shop — and no webhooks, rate limits or SCIM anywhere in the evidence. 1 2 3
The Shop Operator
There is a developer portal, an App Builder and a sandbox, plus SAML/OIDC SSO — real building blocks. But not a single integration is named: no CRM, no shop system, no webhooks, no rate limits, and my test — the order sitting next to the ticket without a second login — is covered only by a generic 'Kundenkontext' line. 1 2 3
The Integrator
SSO with SAML and OIDC, a developer section on the site, App Builder and Action Builder and a sandbox at Suite Enterprise show a genuine developer surface. But the ecosystem claim is 'integrate your favourite tools and partners' — not a single named CRM, shop or IdP integration — and webhooks, documented rate limits and SCIM provisioning appear nowhere; those three are precisely what I need to wire a CRM, a shop and an identity provider, so 5 is as far as the evidence carries. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
'Integrieren Sie Ihre bevorzugten Tools und Partner' names not a single tool or partner — I cannot verify one CRM or shop connector exists. There is an APIs-and-developers section, SAML/OIDC SSO, an App Builder at Professional and a sandbox at Enterprise, but webhooks, rate limits and SCIM go unmentioned, which is above a read-only API and below rubric level 5. 1 2 3
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 contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc. — US — while EEA hosting is offered as an option on AWS and the subprocessor list with names and locations is published, which is exactly the anchor-3 pattern with some transparency credit. No EU contracting entity, nothing on vendor support access to instances, and no self-hosted path, so it cannot climb the ladder. 2 3
The Agent Advocate
The contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc. of San Francisco, and EEA hosting is one of four region options rather than the default — the classic 'EU hosting as an option, US entity on the contract' shape. The published subprocessor list with names and locations is honest of them, but as a buyer my ticket archive's home depends on an option I have to remember to tick. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc. of San Francisco, and EEA hosting is merely one option among US, AU and JP on AWS — EU residency as an opt-in, not a standard. The published subprocessor list with names and locations is to their credit, but there is no EU entity, no self-hosted path, and nothing governing vendor support access to EU-hosted instances. 2 3
The Shop Operator
The contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc. of San Francisco and EEA hosting is merely one option among US, AU and JP — which lands precisely on the anchor for a non-EU entity with EU hosting as an option. The published subprocessor list with names and locations is the only mitigation; no DACH hosting and no sovereign or self-hosted path. 2 3
The Integrator
The contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc. and EEA hosting is one option among US, AU and JP on AWS — textbook non-EU vendor with EU hosting as an option. Credit for a published subprocessor list with names and locations, but the data-residency caveat and unknown entity jurisdiction confirm nobody pinned this down on the vendor's own pages. 2 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Zendesk, Inc. of San Francisco and EEA is one hosting option among US, AU and JP on AWS — precisely rubric level 3's shape: EU hosting as an option behind a non-EU entity. The published subprocessor policy with names and locations keeps it off the floor, but nothing evidences EU-as-standard hosting, an EU entity, or any safeguard for the non-EU parts of the chain. 2 3
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
I can compute most of my invoice: three tiers priced per agent per month with annual billing stated, plus priced add-ons for Contact Center, Copilot and workforce. It loses points because the top tier is 'contact sales', VAT treatment and minimum terms are unstated, and there's no light-agent pricing — and notably the tier where audit logs live is the unpriced one. 2 3
The Agent Advocate
Largely computable: 19/55/115 € per agent per month with the billing period stated, and the add-ons a support lead actually prices — Contact Center at 82 €, Copilot at 50 € — carry public numbers. It stops short of full transparency because the top tier is 'Vertrieb kontaktieren' and neither VAT treatment nor minimum term appears anywhere on the evidence. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Three Suite tiers and three add-ons carry public per-agent prices with the billing period stated, and even telephony is priced at 82 €/agent/month. But VAT treatment and minimum terms are unstated, Enterprise is 'Vertrieb kontaktieren', and the advanced data protection add-on — the one I would need — has no price on the captured pricing page at all. 2
The Shop Operator
Four per-agent prices are public with annual billing stated, and the Contact Center, Copilot and Workforce add-ons carry real numbers (€82/€50/€50), so most of the invoice is computable. But Suite Enterprise — where custom roles, sandbox and the advanced security features begin — is 'Vertrieb kontaktieren', and VAT treatment, minimum terms and any monthly alternative are nowhere on the page. 2
The Integrator
Three tiers and three add-ons carry public per-agent EUR prices with the billing period stated, so most of an annual invoice is computable — and the Contact Center telephony add-on is priced, not bundled. But Suite Enterprise is 'Vertrieb kontaktieren', the advanced data privacy add-on has no number on this page, and VAT treatment and minimum terms are unstated, leaving the invoice incomplete exactly where the compliance features start. 2
The Skeptic
Three tiers carry euro per-agent prices with annual billing stated, and the metered items are at least priced honestly — telephony as an €82 Contact Center add-on and the Copilot AI as €50 per agent per month, so the AI assistance is an add-on, not a feature. But the top tier is 'Vertrieb kontaktieren', the data-privacy add-on carries no number, and VAT treatment, minimum terms and light-agent limits appear nowhere — the classic rubric level 5, with the enterprise invoice not computable. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU optional ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 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. This is the German contracting subsidiary; every page footer references the US parent 'Zendesk, Inc.', so the group's ultimate legal seat is not shown in these excerpts.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The page does not state which region is the default for new accounts; the EWR location is only one selectable option next to US, AU and JP.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. AWS is a US-headquartered provider regardless of the chosen data-center region, and Cloudflare is additionally named for network edge protection.
- 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.
- 41 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
- 33 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
- 24 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
- 6 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
- 2 data 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 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
- 2 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 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
- 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.zendesk.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.zendesk.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy www.zendesk.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.zendesk.de Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page www.zendesk.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Knowledge base & deflection — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.zendesk.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →