whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Design

Collaboard

UK / wider Europe Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Collaboard: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Collaboard: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Collaboard alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Frontend Engineer

Weighted verdict

Turns the designs into code and gets the ticket when they disagree. Wants an inspect mode without a paid seat, tokens exported in a documented format, components mapped to the code ones, and an API that reads the whole file rather than a screenshot of it.

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

Scored by The Frontend Engineer

Panel median The Frontend Engineer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Frontend Engineer
Design, prototyping & design systems 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Collaboration, review & developer handoff 2 of 5 2 of 5
Brand assets & governance 2 of 5 2 of 5
Files, formats & portability 2.5 of 5 3 of 5
AI features & rights to the work 0.5 of 5 1 of 5
European sovereignty 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 1 of 5 1 of 5

Design, prototyping & design systems

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Collaboration, review & developer handoff

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Brand assets & governance

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Files, formats & portability

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

AI features & rights to the work

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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 ⚠ 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

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 Collaboard? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (15)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Legal notice www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Terms of service www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.collaboard.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →