whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Customer Service & Helpdesk

Znuny

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.

by Znuny GmbH · www.znuny.org

Compare with OTRS → 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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Sees a ticket archive for what it is: years of personal data customers typed themselves, including the things they should not have. Wants retention that executes, redaction, an audit of who read what, and an answer on whether vendor support can open a ticket.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

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 Data Protection Officer

Queues are documented as permission objects with grouping by department, service, product or country, moving and splitting for inter-team hand-off, and personal My Queues views with drill-down filtering; ownership, priority, and pending and close permissions imply a working status model. We found no public information on SLA timers, breach warnings, escalation chains, reporting on first-response and resolution time, or full-text search across ticket bodies. 3 4 5

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 Data Protection Officer

Mail collection is documented in depth — any number of accounts over IMAP, POP3 and Microsoft Graph with OAuth2, folder selection and per-account fetch — and a phone-screen permission lets agents record calls as tickets, so this is email plus agent-logged calls. We found no public information on live chat, a customer portal, messengers or telephony integration landing in one queue. 4 5

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 Data Protection Officer

We found no public information on a knowledge base, help centre, article workflow, article suggestions or deflection reporting in any captured page; the product is presented as corporate-level ticket management and the queue documentation covers queues alone. 1 3

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 Data Protection Officer

The permission model is the one documented strength: seven queue-level permissions from read-only to full access, with optional extended permissions behind system configuration, giving real control over which agents see which queue. Beyond that we found no public information on retention periods, executable deletion of a requester's data, an audit log of who opened which ticket, attachment handling, redaction, or a published data-processing agreement. 5

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 Data Protection Officer

We found no public information on a documented API, named CRM, shop or identity integrations, webhooks, SSO or SCIM provisioning in the captured pages; the connectivity evidence covers mail protocols only, which is inbound mail rather than system-to-system context. 1 4

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 Data Protection Officer

The contracting entity is firmly European — Znuny GmbH of Berlin with a Charlottenburg commercial register entry and German VAT ID — and the software ships as a download, so a buyer can run the archive on their own infrastructure. We found no public information on hosting arrangements, subprocessors, ownership or certification, which leaves the processing chain unevidenced. 1 2

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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 Data Protection Officer

The software is free and downloadable — "Free as free can be" — so the annual licence invoice is zero for any agent count with the feature set as shipped, and no tiering is implied. The one unpriced element is Znuny Professional Services, for which no public prices are given. 1

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.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

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.

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

Sources (5)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.znuny.org Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Imprint www.znuny.org Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Ticketing, queues & SLA — found from sitemap doc.znuny.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Channels in one queue — found from sitemap doc.znuny.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Customer data protection — found from sitemap doc.znuny.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →