Design
Collaboard
UK / wider Europe Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by IBV Informatik, Beratungs und Vertriebs AG · www.collaboard.app
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.
Collaboard at a glance
- Vendor
- IBV Informatik, Beratungs und Vertriebs AG
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Europe source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Collaboard 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Collaboard, an online whiteboard from IBV Informatik, Beratungs und Vertriebs AG, scores highest on collaboration and handoff at 4 to 6 and file ownership and portability at 4 to 6, resting on free browser guests, password-protected expiring invitations, terms naming the user sole owner of the data, and import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Collaboard, an online whiteboard from IBV Informatik, Beratungs und Vertriebs AG, scores highest on collaboration and handoff at 4 to 6 and file ownership and portability at 4 to 6, resting on free browser guests, password-protected expiring invitations, terms naming the user sole owner of the data, and import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard. Design and prototyping holds at 2 to 3 — a template-and-shapes toolkit, not components or prototypes. AI and content rights scores lowest at 1 to 2: the documented AI is background removal and sticky-note detection, with no public answers on models, training or output rights. Pricing transparency matches at 1 to 2 — no per-seat price published, Germany hosting an additional charge without a figure. Sovereignty genuinely splits the judges, 3 to 7: three of six scored 7 for selectable hosting — Microsoft Azure in Switzerland or the Netherlands, Germany's Open Telekom Cloud, or self-hosting — while the data protection officer scored 3, citing different residency figures across captured pages, a privacy policy storing exclusively in Switzerland, and an independently sourced assessment marking all four sovereignty attributes unconfirmed.
Speaks for it
- Guests join free in the browser with no account or licence, under invitations with configurable permissions, optional passwords and link expiry
- The terms state the user remains sole owner of the data, with release on demand by electronic transmission and deletion of all user data on termination
- Runs on-premises or in the cloud of the customer's choice, with hosting selectable among Microsoft Azure Switzerland, Microsoft Azure in the Netherlands and Germany's Open Telekom Cloud
- Boards import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard, with imported PDFs converted into editable board elements
- A free trial runs 14 days with up to 3 boards and five people per session, with all key features available to try
Held against it
- No public price per seat appears for any plan, so an annual cost cannot be computed, and Germany hosting carries an additional charge with no stated figure
- The documented AI is image background removal and sticky-note detection, with no public information on models, providers, processing location, training on customer content or commercial rights to output
- Exports reach image, PDF, text and table CSV, with no public information on structured whole-board export or a developer inspect mode with measurements
- The documented design toolkit is templates, shapes, pens and tables, and we found no public information on reusable components, shared styles, tokens or interactive prototypes
- The captured pages give different figures for data residency — a privacy policy storing exclusively in Switzerland against a choice of Germany, Switzerland or the EU elsewhere — and we found no public information on a subprocessor list, where AI features process data, or the contracting entity's jurisdiction
Best for
- You run client workshops and need external participants to join free in the browser without accounts, under password-protected invitations that expire
- You must choose where your boards live — Microsoft Azure in Switzerland or the Netherlands, Germany's Open Telekom Cloud, or your own servers on-premises
- You are migrating boards from Miro, Mural or Conceptboard and want written terms naming you sole owner of your data with deletion on termination
- Your teams rely on ready-made workshop structures — the template library offers search, categories and templates with locked or pinned objects
Avoid if
- You need a published per-seat price before talking to sales — the pricing page names plans and features but shows no figures, and Germany hosting is an additional charge without an amount
- Your product design work needs reusable components, shared styles, tokens or interactive prototypes — the documented toolkit is a whiteboard of templates, shapes and sticky notes
- Your developer handoff needs measurements, styles or code-linked components — the documented export reaches image, PDF, text and table CSV
- Your AI use requires disclosed models, processing locations or commercial rights to output — the documented AI is image background removal and sticky-note detection
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 1.5 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 2 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 2 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 2.5 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 0.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 of 5 |
Design, prototyping & design systems
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The making itself: vector and layout tools, interactive prototypes, and the shared components, styles and tokens that keep a company's products and materials consistent — judged on what the feature and help pages document, not on showcase images.
0 — A single-purpose editor with no reusable components, no shared styles and no prototyping.
3 — Templates and basic shapes or layouts, with styles saved per file only and prototyping limited to linking screens.
5 — Reusable components and shared styles across files, responsive or auto layout, clickable prototypes with transitions, and team libraries that update where they are used.
8 — A design system managed in the tool: variables or tokens for colour, type and spacing with modes or themes, component variants and properties, prototypes with conditional logic, and library change notes with versions.
10 — The design system is a governed product: library releases versioned and reviewable, token export in a documented format for development, usage analytics per component, and accessibility checks such as contrast built into the editor.
The Product Designer
A facilitation whiteboard with a genuinely deep template library — over 250 templates in English with search, filters, favourites and locked or pinned objects — plus shapes, sticky notes, tables and pens. I found no public information on reusable components with variants, shared styles or tokens across files, team libraries, or interactive prototypes, so this stays at the template-and-shapes level. 1 4 7
The Frontend Engineer
This is a workshop whiteboard, not a design tool: two hundred fifty plus templates, shapes, sticky notes and an infinite canvas are documented, but I found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files or team libraries, and nothing on variables, tokens or variants. Templates can carry locked and pinned objects, which is the only system-like structure evidenced, and prototyping amounts to presentation and focus modes rather than interactive flows. 1 7 4 2
The Brand Marketer
The captured pages show an online whiteboard with sticky notes, pens, shapes, tables and mindmaps, plus a template library of over 250 templates with search, categories and favourites, and imported PDFs become editable board elements. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files, or any prototyping, let alone tokens or component variants. 1 2 7
The Agency Owner
What the captured pages document is a workshop whiteboard — over 250 templates, sticky notes, shapes, drawing pens, tables and an infinite canvas — with templates that can carry locked and pinned objects. The nearest thing to shared design standards is an eighteen-colour brand palette applied across all whiteboards. I found no public information on reusable component libraries that update where they are used, on variables or tokens, or on interactive prototypes. 1 7 11
The Data Protection Officer
The documented toolkit is workshop canvassing — sticky notes, shapes, drawing pens, tables, mindmaps — over a large searchable template library whose objects can be locked and pinned. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files, tokens, or any prototyping, so this is a whiteboard rather than a product design environment. 1 7 4
The Skeptic
Templates are the strong suit — over 250 searchable, categorised structures that can carry locked and pinned objects, plus the expected whiteboard shapes, pens, tables and multimedia. But this is a workshop whiteboard, not a design tool: I found no public information on reusable components, shared team styles, or any prototyping at all, screen-linking included. 1 7 4
Collaboration, review & developer handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Working on the same files with colleagues, clients and developers: comments and review, permissions for internal and external people, and the handoff that gives engineering measurements, assets and code rather than screenshots.
0 — Files shared as exports or links with no comments, no permissions beyond view or edit, and no developer view.
3 — Real-time co-editing and comments, but external reviewers need a paid seat or full access, and developers get only exported images.
5 — Comments with mentions and resolution, view-only and comment-only access for guests without a paid seat, permissions per file and project, and an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export.
8 — Branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, version history with restore, a developer mode that links components to code, an API and plugins documented, and named integrations with issue trackers and code tools.
10 — Handoff is a contract between design and code: component properties mapped to code components, token and asset export automated through the API, an audit log of access and sharing, and external access governed by domain, expiry and admin policy.
The Product Designer
Collaboration is well worked out: comments attach to objects with @-mentions and email notifications, guests join free in the browser with no licence, invitations carry configurable permissions, passwords, link expiry and QR or embed sharing, and board versions, Enterprise audit logs plus Jira, Confluence and API integrations round it out. The handoff half is thin — developers get image, PDF, sticky-note text and CSV exports — and I found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements, a developer mode linking components to code, or review of changes before they reach the main board. 2 8 9 12 6
The Frontend Engineer
The comment and permission side is genuinely good: object-attached comments with mentions, expiring password-protected links, per-project permission rules and guests joining free in the browser without a seat. But the handoff is where it dies for me — export tops out at image, PDF, text and CSV, with no inspect mode, no measurements, no styles, no developer view mapping objects to code, and the API is one line with no documented full-board reads. 8 9 12 2 6
The Brand Marketer
Comments attach to objects and support mentions with email notification, and guests join free in the browser with per-project permissions, passwords and link expiry, governed by a clear first-invite permission rule — good control over external reviewers. Board versions, audit logs on the Enterprise plan, an API and a Jira and Confluence integration add weight, but we found no public information on comment resolution or an inspect mode giving developers measurements, styles and asset export. 2 8 9 6
The Agency Owner
Guests join for free in the browser with no licence and no account, comments carry mentions, unread counts and attachment to objects, and invitations can be password-protected, name-gated and set to expire with admin-enforced defaults — exactly how I want clients treated. The developer side of the handoff is flat exports of image, PDF, text and CSV; I found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements and styles, or on components linked to code. Named integrations with Jira and Confluence and an API for custom integrations are the only engineering hooks. 9 8 6 12 2
The Data Protection Officer
Real-time co-editing, object-attached comments with mentions and unread badges, and unusually careful guest governance are documented — free guests without accounts, optional passwords, link expiry, admin-enforced parameters and the first-invite permission rule. We found no public information on branching or review before changes reach the main file, or on a developer view with measurements, styles or code; export reaches images, PDF, text and CSV. 8 9 6 2 12
The Skeptic
Real-time co-editing, comments with mentions, likes and unread counts, plus genuinely free guests joining in a browser with configurable permissions, link expiry and passwords — the invitation machinery is the best-documented part of the product. Handoff is where it stops: developers get image, PDF, text and CSV exports rather than measurements or a code view, and I found no public information on comment resolution or review of changes before they land, though audit logs arrive on the Enterprise plan. 8 9 6 12 2
Brand assets & governance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keeping a brand usable and correct across a company: a central library for logos, images and templates, brand guidelines people can find, locked templates that let non-designers produce material, and rights and expiry metadata on every licensed asset.
0 — No shared asset library; logos and images are uploaded per file by whoever needs them.
3 — A shared folder of assets and some templates, but no guidelines, no locking of brand elements and no metadata beyond file names.
5 — A central brand library with logos, colours and fonts, templates with locked elements for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, and tagging and search across assets.
8 — Rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets with warnings or automatic withdrawal on expiry, approval workflows for new assets and template output, version control on assets, and access per team, market or partner.
10 — Brand governance is auditable: every asset carries its licence, owner and permitted use, usage of each asset is tracked across files and channels, distribution to external partners is logged, and the whole library with metadata is exportable in a documented format.
The Product Designer
Branding here is white-labelling the app: up to eighteen brand colours applied as standard colours across all whiteboards, a logo on login, dashboard and board, an app colour theme and welcome video — an Enterprise purchase, Advanced on request — and templates can carry locked and pinned elements for non-designers. I found no public information on a central library for licensed assets, brand guidelines inside the tool, tagging and search across assets, or rights, owner and expiry metadata. 2 7 10 11
The Frontend Engineer
Branding here means re-skinning the product: a logo across login and board, up to eighteen brand colours as standard palette values, a custom welcome video and organisational templates that can contain locked and pinned objects. I found no public information on a central library of licensed assets with tagging and search, brand guidelines published in the tool, or rights and expiry metadata on any asset. 10 11 2 7
The Brand Marketer
The admin-area branding lets me put our logo on the login screen, dashboard and whiteboard, and pin up to eighteen brand colours as standard across all boards, while templates can carry locked and pinned objects so my regional offices cannot wreck them. We found no public information on brand guidelines published inside the tool, a searchable asset library with tagging, or licence and expiry metadata on images, and branding itself is a purchased feature for Enterprise customers, Advanced only on request. 2 7 10 11
The Agency Owner
Branding here means white-labelling the app: logo on the login screen, dashboard and whiteboard, up to eighteen brand colours as standard across all whiteboards, a custom colour theme and welcome video, gated to Enterprise or Advanced on request. Templates can carry locked and pinned objects and organizations get their own templates. I found no public information on a central library of logos, images and fonts with tagging and search, on brand guidelines published in the tool, or on rights, usage and expiry metadata for licensed assets. 11 10 7 2
The Data Protection Officer
What is documented is white-labelling of the application itself — logo on login, dashboard and whiteboard, up to eighteen brand colours, custom app name and welcome video — configured by an administrator and mainly for Enterprise customers. We found no public information on a central asset library carrying rights, usage or expiry metadata, on brand guidelines published in the tool, or on approval workflows, though templates with locked objects are supported. 10 11 7
The Skeptic
The branding work is white-labelling the app itself — logo on the login screen, dashboard and board, up to eighteen brand colours, a custom welcome video — rather than governing a company's asset library. Templates can lock and pin elements and organizations get their own templates, but I found no public information on brand guidelines published in the tool, tagging or search across assets, or licence and expiry metadata. 11 10 7 2
Files, formats & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the work can leave: open or documented file formats, export that keeps layers, vectors and components, offline or self-hosted options, and what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract.
0 — Files exist only in the vendor's cloud in a proprietary format, export is a flat image, and nothing is said about files after cancellation.
3 — Export to PNG, PDF and SVG per frame, but no export of whole files with structure, and files after a downgrade or cancellation addressed only in general terms.
5 — Whole files exportable to a local or documented format, vector and layered export (SVG, PDF) with text kept as text, bulk export of a team's files, and a stated period during which files remain accessible after cancellation.
8 — An open or publicly documented file format, export and import with other tools documented, an API that reads full file structure, files of removed users transferred to the organisation by policy, and a stated deletion timeline after the contract ends.
10 — Portability is built in: an open-source or openly specified format, self-hosting or a local-first option, round-trip export without loss of components and prototypes, and the customer's ownership of all files and their export rights written into the terms.
The Product Designer
Exports are flat — image, PDF, sticky-note text, CSV for tables and structured A4 handouts — and I found no public information on whole-board export with layers or structure preserved. What lifts it: Collaboard runs on-premises or in the customer's own cloud, imports from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard with PDFs converted to editable elements, and the terms state the user remains sole owner of the data, deleted on termination and released on demand by electronic transmission. 2 5 12 13
The Frontend Engineer
Ownership is written into the terms — the user remains sole owner of the data — with release on demand, deletion at termination, documented import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard, and the option to run the whole thing on your own servers. The export story is the weak leg: image, PDF, text and CSV with no documented file format, no structured whole-board export, and nothing on the API page about reading full board structure rather than a rendering of it. 5 12 13 2 6
The Brand Marketer
Boards export as image, PDF, text or table CSV and projects import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard, but we found no public information on a structured whole-file format or layered export. The terms state the user remains sole owner of the data and that all user data is deleted on termination without a stated timeline, and the on-premises option means the work can run in our own environment. 2 5 12 13
The Agency Owner
Ownership and the end of the story are in the terms: the user remains sole owner of the data, and upon termination of the contractual relationship all user data is deleted — a clear rule, though I found no public information on a period of continued access after cancellation. Export covers image, PDF, text and CSV per selection, plus import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard, but I found no public information on a whole-file export that keeps structure, vectors or components. The real portability is operational: Collaboard runs on-premises or in the cloud of our choice. 5 12 13 2
The Data Protection Officer
Ownership and exit are in writing: the user remains sole owner of the data, release on demand by electronic transmission and deletion of all user data on termination are stated in the terms, and the software can run on-premises or in the customer's own cloud. Export covers image, PDF, text and CSV and import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard is offered, but we found no public information on a documented whole-file format, round-trip structure, or a stated deletion timeline after the contract ends. 5 13 6 12 2
The Skeptic
Exports are flat — image, PDF, text, plus CSV for tables — with no evidence of structured whole-file export, and after termination the terms state all user data is deleted, with no timeline published. Credit where due: import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard, an on-premises or own-cloud option, and terms stating the user remains sole owner of the data. 12 2 5 13
AI features & rights to the work
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the vendor's AI does with the customer's files and what the customer may do with the AI's output: training on customer content and the opt-out, the models and where they run, commercial use of generated images, stock licences and indemnity.
0 — Generative features with no statement on training on customer files, no named models, and no word on whether output may be used commercially.
3 — An AI page that promises responsibility but leaves open whether customer files train models, and output rights are stated only for some features or only in community terms.
5 — Training on customer content excluded or opt-out documented, AI features switchable by an admin for the organisation, model providers named, and commercial use of generated output permitted in the terms.
8 — Training excluded by default for business plans, the processing location of AI features stated, generated content labelled or carrying content credentials, stock and template licences stated per asset type, and an IP indemnity for generated output on a named plan.
10 — AI is governed in writing: a per-feature list of models, providers and locations, admin controls per team and feature, a log of AI use, training exclusion and output ownership in the contract terms, and indemnity and licence limits published in full.
The Product Designer
The documented AI is background removal and sticky-note detection from images, plus a beta MCP server on Advanced, with on-premise activation via static feature flags. I found no public information on named models or providers, whether customer files are used for training, where AI processing happens, or the commercial-use status of output — an AI data-processing addendum page exists but no content from it is captured. 1 2 14 15
The Frontend Engineer
The AI help page documents background removal and sticky-note detection, including activation through static feature flags for on-premise installations, and that is everything I have. I found no public information on named models or providers, where AI processing runs, whether customer boards are used for training, or the commercial-use rights to generated output. 14 1
The Brand Marketer
The help pages document two assistive AI features — image background removal and sticky-note detection — activatable on-premise via feature flags, and the homepage names Collaboard AI. We found no public information on whether customer files train models, on the models or providers behind the features, or on commercial-use rights for output, so my trade-fair-stand question on a generated image has no answer in the evidence. 1 14
The Agency Owner
The documented AI features are image background removal and sticky-note detection, with on-premises customers switching them on through static feature flags — the only control I can see. I found no public information on whether customer content trains models, which models or providers are behind the features, where they run, or whether output may be used commercially. Before I point an AI tool at client files, those are the three answers I need. 14 1
The Data Protection Officer
The AI features are documented — background removal, sticky-note detection, a beta MCP server, with on-premise activation via static feature flags — but the captured pages give no statement on whether customer files train models, name no model providers or processing locations, and say nothing on commercial use of generated output. A dedicated AI data-processing addendum page exists, yet we found no public information on its contents regarding training exclusion or rights to the output. 14 1 2 15
The Skeptic
The AI offering is background removal and sticky-note detection from a context menu, with on-premises customers able to switch features on through static feature flags — a real control, but modest features. I found no public information on training on customer content, named models or providers, processing location, commercial-use rights for output, or any indemnity. 1 14
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where design files, brand assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where files are hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU data residency available only on an enterprise plan or not at all, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI features send files outside the EU without an explained safeguard.
5 — EU hosting stated for files, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (AI, rendering, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity, files, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.
The Product Designer
Hosting is European and named: Microsoft Azure in Switzerland and the Netherlands, the Open Telekom Cloud of Telekom Deutschland in Germany, selected by the customer, with self-hosting or the customer's own cloud as a further option and development in Switzerland. The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, and I found no public information on a published subprocessor list with purposes, the AI processing location, or certifications. 2 3 6 13 6
The Frontend Engineer
All hosting is European and customer-selectable — Microsoft Azure in Switzerland or the Netherlands, the Open Telekom Cloud in Germany — with GDPR compliance claimed, the software developed in Switzerland and a self-hosting option on top. The gaps that keep it from the top band: no published subprocessor list with purposes, no stated AI processing location, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages. 3 2 6 6 13
The Brand Marketer
Hosting is genuinely selectable — Switzerland, Germany or the EU on named infrastructure (Microsoft Azure, Open Telekom Cloud), or our own servers on-premises — and the vendor presents itself as Swiss-made and developed in Switzerland. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, on where AI features process data, or on an available data processing agreement, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages. 2 3 6 6
The Agency Owner
Hosting is a customer choice among Microsoft Azure Switzerland, Microsoft Azure in the Netherlands and Germany's Open Telekom Cloud — the German region carries a stated extra charge — with self-hosting or on-premises operation offered for full sovereignty, from software developed in Switzerland. What holds this back from the top band is that I found no public information on where the AI features process data, or on a subprocessor list beyond the named hosting providers with locations and purposes. 3 2 6 13
The Data Protection Officer
Vendor pages state hosting choices — Azure Switzerland, Azure Netherlands, the Open Telekom Cloud in Germany, or the customer's own servers — though the captured pages give different figures for residency, the privacy policy saying data is stored exclusively in Switzerland while other pages offer a choice of Germany, Switzerland or the EU. We found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations and purposes, on where AI features are processed, or on the confirmed contracting entity and ownership, and the independently sourced sovereignty assessment marked all four attributes unconfirmed. 3 6 2 6 13
The Skeptic
Hosting is a customer choice of Switzerland on Azure, Germany on the Open Telekom Cloud, or the Netherlands, with on-premises and own-server operation offered and a Swiss-developed product behind it — the strongest evidence in this category. What caps it: I found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, on where the AI features process, or on certifications, and the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction. 3 2 13 11
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team from public pages alone — which seat types exist and what each may do, how viewers and guests are billed, how seats are added and trued up, AI credits, and the plan where SSO, admin controls and brand features begin.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-seat price for an entry plan, but the seat types, the billing of guests and reviewers, and the plan needed for business features are unclear.
5 — Plans priced per seat type with their main features, but at least one commonly incurred cost (seat upgrades on request, AI credits, storage, brand or SSO add-ons) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every plan and seat type priced, free viewers and guests stated with their limits, how and when added seats are billed explained, AI credits and storage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks SSO and admin controls named.
10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given mix of editors, viewers and guests, true-up and auto-upgrade rules published, every add-on priced publicly, and contract term, renewal and downgrade conditions stated.
The Product Designer
The plan structure is public — Advanced and Enterprise with their features named, guests free without extra licences, and a 14-day trial with three boards and five participants — but I found no public prices for any plan or seat type on the captured pages, and German hosting is said to carry an additional charge with no figure. A buyer can map features to plans but cannot compute any cost. 2 5 6
The Frontend Engineer
The captured pricing page names an Advanced plan with branding, facilitation tools and the MCP server, and an Enterprise plan with SSO, SCIM/LDAP, audit logs and premium support, while trial limits and free guests are stated clearly. But no seat price figures appear anywhere in the captured material, so an annual cost cannot be computed from public pages, and branding plus the German hosting surcharge are purchase conversations. 2 6 5 13
The Brand Marketer
The pricing page names the plans and their features — SSO, SCIM/LDAP and audit logs at Enterprise, branding and facilitation tools at Advanced — and guests join free with no extra licences, with a trial of three boards, five people and fourteen days stated. We found no public information on any price per seat, Germany hosting is listed as an additional charge without an amount, and branding is Advanced on request, so I cannot compute an annual cost for my twelve offices from public pages. 2 5 6
The Agency Owner
The captured pricing page maps features to named plans — SSO, SCIM, LDAP and audit logs at Enterprise, branding, facilitation tools and the MCP server at Advanced — and guests join for free with no extra licences, alongside a public fourteen-day trial of three boards and five participants per session. But I found no public information on any per-seat price figure, and the on-premises route goes through a contact form, so I cannot compute an annual cost for my fifteen-person team from these pages alone. 2 6 5 13
The Data Protection Officer
Plan structure is public — features allocated across Advanced and Enterprise, a free 14-day trial with three boards and five people per session, guests joining free with no extra licences, and upgrades possible at any time. But we found no public price figures for any plan or seat type, the Germany hosting option carries an additional charge that is not quantified, and self-hosting is a demo request through a contact form. 2 5 6 6 13
The Skeptic
The pricing page names which plan carries SSO, audit logs, branding and the MCP server, and the trial is concrete — 14 days, three boards, five people per session, guests free — but I found no public information on any per-seat price figure, so an annual cost cannot be computed. Germany hosting is described as available for an additional charge and branding for Advanced users on request, with the captured pages giving no figures for either. 2 6 10
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Collaboard
Is Collaboard European?
Yes, though not from the EU. whats-best.ai classifies Collaboard as UK / wider Europe.
Where does Collaboard store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Europe as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
Does Collaboard have a free plan?
Yes. Collaboard has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Collaboard?
As of 16 Oct 2026, the panel rates Penpot (2.5/5), Sketch (2.5/5) and Frontify (2.5/5) highest among the other 13 Design 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 Penpot (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Collaboard alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 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, 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.
- 9 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
- 8 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 subprocessors 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
- 4 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
- 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
- 2 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
- 1 support 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
- 3 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
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →