Document Management (DMS)
Laserfiche
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Compulink Management Center, Inc. · www.laserfiche.com
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.
Laserfiche at a glance
- Vendor
- Compulink Management Center, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Laserfiche 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Laserfiche, an AI-powered document management platform from Compulink Management Center, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 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
Laserfiche, an AI-powered document management platform from Compulink Management Center, Inc. of Long Beach, USA, scores highest on document workflows — a flat 8 — with low-code process automation, a documented API and webhooks, e-signature via DocuSign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan, and invoice processing that matches purchase orders into SAP or Oracle Cloud ERP, though DATEV is not among the named connectors. Capture and indexing follows at 6-7: Smart Fields extract fields described in natural language, including handwriting and complex tables, but judges found no public information on a validation step, duplicate detection, XRechnung or ZUGFeRD as structured data, or where the AI processing runs. The weakest scores are sovereignty at 0-2, where judges found no public information on cloud storage location, subprocessors or AI provider; search and portability at 3-4, with tooling documented only for import and self-hosted-to-cloud migration; and pricing transparency at 1-2, where editions and AI-unit quotas are public but no price figures appear. Versioning and permissions at 4-6 and audit-proof archiving at 4-6 sit between, resting on vendor descriptions rather than audited proof.
Speaks for it
- Document workflows top the scoring at 8, with low-code process automation, a documented API with webhooks and a Solution Marketplace of prebuilt integrations
- Smart Fields capture extracts data from natural-language descriptions, handling handwriting, complex tables and a dozen prebuilt document types
- Records Management, with automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold support, is included in the Business and Business+ editions
- Invoice workflows auto-match invoices to purchase orders and receipts in SAP or Oracle Cloud ERP, and e-signature runs through DocuSign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan
- Identity and access are documented with SAML, AD FS, SCIM provisioning, MFA and role-based and fine-grained access controls
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores run 0-2, with no public information on cloud storage location, subprocessors or where AI features that read document content are processed
- No price figures appear on the captured pricing page for any edition, user, storage tier, maintenance or onboarding
- Search and portability scores sit at 3-4, with no public information on full-text search with saved searches or bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail
- No public information on GoBD, an auditor's report such as IDW PS 880, or tax-audit data export, and WORM storage comes only as a paid Vault add-on
- No public information on version history, restore or check-in/check-out, and the Advanced Audit Trail is included only in the Business and Business+ editions
Best for
- You need invoice processing that auto-matches invoices to purchase orders and receipts and hands off to SAP or Oracle Cloud ERP
- You want AI capture that classifies documents and extracts fields described in plain language, including handwriting and complex tables
- Your automation roadmap depends on a documented API, webhooks and a marketplace of prebuilt integrations
- You need Records Management with automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold support inside the product
Avoid if
- You are a European organization whose repository holds personnel files or customer contracts and you need published storage locations and subprocessor lists before signing
- You must evidence GoBD-conform archiving with an auditor's report, Verfahrensdokumentation or tax-audit export to authorities
- You need a documented exit path of bulk export with documents, metadata, versions and audit trail when a contract ends
- You must compute a budget from public prices before engaging sales
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 3.5 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2.5 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 4 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 of 5 |
Capture, OCR & indexing
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How documents get in and become findable: scanning and email intake, OCR, classification and metadata extraction, and whether incoming e-invoices (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD) are read as structured data rather than as pictures.
0 — Manual upload only; no OCR, no metadata beyond file name and folder.
3 — Upload, drag-and-drop and scan import with OCR mentioned, but indexing is manual and no word on email intake or e-invoice formats.
5 — Scanner, email and folder intake, full-text OCR, document types with metadata fields, and automatic extraction of common fields (date, sender, amount) documented.
8 — AI- or rule-based classification and field extraction with confidence and a validation step, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD read as structured data, mailbox and Microsoft 365 intake, and duplicate detection documented.
10 — Capture is engineered and shown: classification and extraction trainable per document type, validation queues, e-invoice validation against the standard, intake channels listed with their limits, and where AI processing runs (location, model provider) stated.
The GoBD Auditor
Capture is genuinely documented: batch scanning, email archiving, mobile capture and bulk import are listed, and AI classification with metadata templates, natural-language-trained field extraction and handwriting recognition are described in detail. But we found no public information on a validation step or confidence values, on duplicate detection, on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD read as structured data — the last matters for German e-invoicing duties — or on where the AI processing runs. 2 5 6
The Records Manager
Capture is genuinely strong: batch scanning with image clean-up, email archiving, bulk import and mobile intake are listed, and the AI recognises document type, applies the metadata template and extracts the fields — metadata is set at capture, which is exactly what I want to see. Natural-language smart fields pull invoice line items and email header data, with prebuilt templates for a dozen document types and handwriting recognition. What holds it back: no public information on a validation step or confidence scores, on duplicate detection, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD e-invoice reading, or on where the AI processing runs. 1 2 5 6
The IT Integrator
Capture is genuinely engineered: Smart Fields trained with natural-language prompts, a marketplace of per-document-type templates covering invoices, contracts and handwritten intake forms, auto-classification and auto-filing, and intake channels listed (batch scanning, bulk import, email archiving, mobile capture) with per-plan AI-unit and transcription quotas. We found no public information on a validation step with confidence scores, duplicate detection, XRechnung or ZUGFeRD read as structured data, or where the AI processing runs — that is what separates a strong capture from a complete one. 1 2 6
The Mittelstand Owner
AI capture is genuinely strong: documents are auto-classified, metadata templates applied and fields described in plain language and extracted, with handwriting, line items and a shelf of prebuilt templates for invoices and purchase orders. But we found no public information on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, on duplicate detection, a validation queue, or where the AI processing runs — for a German buyer that caps it below the top marks. 1 2 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
AI capture is well evidenced: Smart Fields extract data from natural-language descriptions, classify documents, apply metadata templates and handle handwriting, complex tables and many prebuilt document types, with intake via batch scanning, email archiving, bulk import and mobile capture. But no validation step or confidence scores are documented, no duplicate detection, no word on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD as structured data, and no statement of where the AI processing runs — a question I cannot leave open for personnel files. 1 2 5 6
The Skeptic
Auto-classification, batch scanning, email archiving and natural-language Smart Fields with a dozen prebuilt templates are documented in unusual detail, including handwriting and complex table extraction. But I found no public information on a validation step or confidence scores behind the AI extraction, on duplicate detection, on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, or on where the AI that reads your invoices actually runs. 2 5 6
Versioning, permissions & audit trail
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who may see and change which document, what happened to it, and whether earlier states can be recovered: version history, check-in and check-out, role- and attribute-based rights, and an audit trail of reads and changes.
0 — Files overwrite each other; rights only at folder level or not described; no log of who did what.
3 — Version history and folder permissions exist, but no check-out, no record-level rights and no documented audit log.
5 — Version history with restore, check-in and check-out, roles and groups with document-type or record-level rights, and an audit log of changes documented.
8 — Metadata-driven permissions (by department, client or confidentiality), audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions, single sign-on and directory sync (Entra ID, LDAP) documented, and administrators' own actions logged.
10 — Access is provable: the audit trail is tamper-evident and exportable, permission changes are themselves versioned, field-level rights and need-to-know access for HR or legal records documented, and the log retention period stated.
The GoBD Auditor
Role-based and fine-grained access controls, SSO, MFA and SCIM provisioning are documented, and an Advanced Audit Trail is named as included in the Business and Business+ editions. We found no public information on what that trail covers — reads, exports, deletions — on tamper-evidence or exportability of the log, or on version history, restore and check-in/check-out. 1 2 8
The Records Manager
Role-based and fine-grained access controls, single sign-on with SAML and directory provisioning, and an advanced audit trail feature are documented, which is more than folder-level rights. But I found no public information on version history or restore, on check-in and check-out, on record-level or metadata-driven permissions, or on what the audit trail actually records — when a 2019 contract is questioned, that gap matters. 1 2 8
The IT Integrator
Identity and access are properly documented — SAML, SCIM provisioning and automated deprovisioning, AD FS, MFA, role-based and fine-grained access controls — which is what I need to hang it off our directory. The rest of the picture is thin: we found no public information on version history or check-in and check-out, and Advanced Audit Trail appears only as a plan feature, with no detail on what it records, log retention or export. 1 2 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Role-based access controls, single sign-on via SAML and AD FS, SCIM provisioning and an Advanced Audit Trail module included in the Business plans are named, but we found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, or what the audit trail actually records — reads, exports and deletions are all unproven, so I cannot tell whether an earlier state can be recovered at all. 1 2 8
The Data Protection Officer
An Advanced Audit Trail is listed as included in the Business editions alongside role-based access, SSO, MFA and SCIM, and governance is described in terms of audit trails and access controls. We found no public information on version history and restore, check-in and check-out, record- or field-level rights, which events the audit trail records, or whether it is tamper-evident and exportable. 1 2 8
The Skeptic
An Advanced Audit Trail plus Enterprise Security with SSO, SCIM, role-based and fine-grained access controls and MFA are documented. However, I found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, restore of earlier states, or whether the audit trail covers reads, exports and deletions — and the audit trail is included only in the upper editions, which makes the record of who did what a paid privilege rather than a baseline. 2 8
Audit-proof archiving & retention
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
GoBD-compliant, revisionssicher archiving: immutability of archived documents, retention schedules and deletion, tax-audit data access, and the independent evidence behind the claim — scored on what is certified and documented, not on the word "GoBD-konform".
0 — No statement on archiving, retention or GoBD.
3 — "GoBD-konform" or "revisionssicher" claimed with no certificate, no description of how immutability is achieved and no retention settings documented.
5 — Archived documents documented as unchangeable, retention periods configurable per document type, deletion after expiry, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation or GoBD guidance offered.
8 — An auditor's report (IDW PS 880 or comparable) published or named with its scope and date, WORM or equivalent storage described, legal hold, GDPR deletion reconciled with retention duties, and Z1–Z3 tax-audit export documented.
10 — Archiving is evidenced end to end: current Testat with scope covering the cloud and on-premises editions as sold, retention and deletion logged and reportable, long-term formats (PDF/A) enforced, and a documented procedure for the tax audit and for moving the archive without breaking its integrity.
The GoBD Auditor
A WORM Vault add-on for non-rewritable long-term storage and records management with automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold are documented. But we found no public information on an auditor's report such as IDW PS 880, on Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, on GoBD guidance or a Verfahrensdokumentation, or on PDF/A as an enforced long-term format — and the WORM storage is a paid add-on rather than part of the base product. 2 8
The Records Manager
WORM storage for non-rewritable long-term preservation is offered as a paid add-on, and records management with automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold is included in the two upper editions. There is no certificate, no auditor's report, no sample procedure documentation and no tax-audit export documented in the captured pages, so the compliance claim rests on the vendor's own descriptions. 2
The IT Integrator
Retention and immutability have real substance: automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold in Records Management, and a Vault add-on using WORM storage for long-term preservation. We found no public information on an auditor's report (IDW PS 880 or comparable), on GoBD or a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, or on how GDPR deletion is reconciled with retention duties — for a German archive that evidence is the point of the exercise. 2
The Mittelstand Owner
WORM storage as a Vault add-on, automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold support are documented, which is more than a bare compliance slogan. But we found no public information on GoBD, an auditor's report or certificate, a Verfahrensdokumentation sample, or tax-audit data access — for my tax office that does not yet carry weight. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The technical machinery is documented: a Vault add-on with WORM non-rewritable storage and Records Management with automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold. We found no public information on GoBD, any auditor's report, tax-audit export, or how GDPR deletion is reconciled with retention duties — exactly the reconciliation I need for personnel files and health certificates. 2 3
The Skeptic
WORM storage in a Vault add-on and Records Management with automated retention schedules, disposition workflows and legal hold support are real, described mechanisms — more than a homepage slogan. But I found no public information on GoBD, on any auditor's report or Testat, on tax-audit data export, or on a Verfahrensdokumentation, and the write-once storage is an extra-cost add-on rather than the default state of the archive. 2
Document workflows & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to a document after it arrives: approval and invoice workflows, tasks and deadlines, and the connectors that tie the DMS to ERP, accounting, DATEV, Microsoft 365 and the rest of the stack.
0 — No workflows; documents are stored and nothing else.
3 — A fixed approval or sharing step and a handful of named integrations, with no workflow designer and no API documentation.
5 — A workflow designer for approvals and invoice processing, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, Microsoft 365 or Outlook integration, and a documented REST API.
8 — Graphical workflow modelling without code, invoice workflow with ERP or DATEV handover documented, connectors for named ERP systems (SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, DATEV) with their scope, webhooks or events, and e-signature integration.
10 — Workflows are a platform: versioned workflow definitions, process reporting with throughput times, a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox, a partner marketplace of integrations with stated maintainers, and workflow history kept in the audit trail.
The GoBD Auditor
The evidence here is extensive: low-code workflow automation with approval and task automation, a documented API with developer centre and webhooks, named connectors to SAP, Salesforce, Esri, Ellucian, Microsoft 365 and Boomi with their use cases described, DocuSign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan e-signature, a Solution Marketplace of prebuilt integrations, and a sandbox environment in the Business+ edition. We found no public information on DATEV handover, API rate limits, versioned workflow definitions or process reporting with throughput times. 1 2 6 8
The Records Manager
Low-code process automation with a workflow product that has its own support and documentation section, approval and task automation, webhooks, an API with a developer centre, and a marketplace of prebuilt integrations and workflows. Invoice processing with purchase-order matching into SAP or Oracle Cloud ERP, direct SAP, Dynamics and Salesforce connectors with described scope, and e-signature through DocuSign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan are all documented. We found no public information on versioned workflow definitions, process reporting with throughput times, or API rate limits with a sandbox. 1 2 7 8
The IT Integrator
From my seat this is the strong suit: a documented API with webhooks that trigger workflows in Laserfiche or third-party tools, a Developer Center, a Solution Marketplace with prebuilt integrations, e-signature through DocuSign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan, and connectors with stated scope — SAP, Salesforce, Esri, Ellucian, HRIS handover to Workday, PO matching against SAP or Oracle Cloud ERP. On DATEV, the connector that matters for a German accounting stack, we found no public information, and I saw no published API rate limits or process reporting with throughput times. 1 2 7 8
The Mittelstand Owner
This is what I came for: low-code process automation, an invoice template that matches purchase orders, routes approvals and tracks payments, handover to SAP or Oracle Cloud ERP, webhooks, e-signatures via DocuSign and Adobe Sign, and a Solution Marketplace with hundreds of prebuilt processes. The developer center and API are there, though we found no public information on a DATEV connector, throughput reporting, or who maintains the marketplace integrations. 1 2 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
This is the strongest area: low-code process automation, invoice processing with purchase-order matching into SAP and Oracle Cloud ERP, direct integrations with Salesforce, SAP, Esri and Ellucian with stated purposes, webhooks, e-signature via DocuSign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan, and a Solution Marketplace of prebuilt processes. DATEV is not among the named connectors, and we found no public information on process reporting, API rate limits or workflow versioning. 1 2 5 8
The Skeptic
Low-code process automation, approval and task handling, webhooks, a developer centre and a solution marketplace are documented, with SAP, Salesforce, Esri, Ellucian, Microsoft 365, Boomi and three e-signature providers named, and invoice workflows handing purchase-order matching over to SAP or Oracle Cloud ERP. What keeps it short of the top: I found no public information on versioned workflow definitions, throughput reporting, API rate limits, or who maintains the marketplace integrations. 8 2 5
Search, retrieval & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Finding documents again and taking them with you: full-text and metadata search, saved searches and mobile access, and whether documents, metadata, versions and audit trail can be exported in documented formats when the contract ends.
0 — Folder browsing only; no export beyond downloading single files.
3 — Full-text search exists, but no metadata filters, and bulk export is undocumented or only on request.
5 — Full-text and metadata search with filters and saved searches, mobile or web access, and bulk export of documents with their metadata (for example CSV or XML) documented.
8 — Search across versions and attachments with permissions respected, export of documents in original format with metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure, and an import path from other DMS or file shares named.
10 — The exit is designed in: a documented complete export with schema, export available self-service at any time, the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion stated, and archives stored in open formats so a successor system can take them over intact.
The GoBD Auditor
Retrieval is thinly evidenced: the captured pages speak of searching, sorting and filtering on captured email metadata and show a mobile app, but we found no public information on full-text search, saved searches or metadata filters as a documented capability. The only tooling shown moves content into the Laserfiche cloud via an assessment tool and a Deployment Manager, while we found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, or on a post-termination retrieval window. 2 6 9 10
The Records Manager
The captured pages describe searching, sorting and filtering by captured metadata such as sender, date and subject, and a mobile app exists, but I found no public information on full-text search, saved searches, or any documented bulk export of documents together with their metadata and versions. The migration tooling I did find moves self-hosted repositories into Laserfiche Cloud; a documented exit path out of the system is absent from these pages. 2 6 10
The IT Integrator
The documented tooling all points inwards: an Import Agent pulling from Windows folders with XML import lists, and a Deployment Manager plus a migration roadmap for self-hosted-to-Cloud moves. We found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, on a post-termination retrieval window, or even on full-text search and saved searches — the only search detail captured is filtering archived emails by sender, date and subject. 6 9 10
The Mittelstand Owner
Search itself is barely described — the captured pages mention searching, sorting and filtering of extracted email details plus mobile capture, but we found no public information on full-text search with metadata filters or saved searches. The import side is documented with an import agent for Windows folders and XML lists, yet the exit is a blank: no documented bulk export with metadata and audit trail, and no post-termination retrieval window. 1 6 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Everything documented moves inward: an Import Agent pulls files from Windows folders into the repository, and a Deployment Manager exports workflows and folder structures to deploy into Laserfiche Cloud. We found no public information on full-text and metadata search with saved searches, nor on any documented bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail when a contract ends. 9 10
The Skeptic
Metadata-based searching and filtering is implied by the Smart Fields capture descriptions, and an Import Agent pulls files in from Windows folders — but that is the way in, not the way out. I found no public information on full-text search with saved searches, and nothing at all on exporting documents with metadata, versions and audit trail when a contract ends; the migration tools I did find move a self-hosted system into Laserfiche Cloud, not out of it. 9 10 6
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and its owner are, where documents and their metadata are stored and processed in the cloud edition, and who the subprocessors are — including any AI provider that reads document content. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where documents are stored, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU entity contracts, but the cloud edition runs on a non-EU-controlled hyperscaler without a stated safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU data centres stated for the cloud edition, with a DPA, but significant parts of the chain (hosting, AI processing, support) are non-EU-controlled without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity, documents and metadata stored in named EU data centres, subprocessor list with locations published, AI processing location disclosed, an on-premises or private-cloud option offered, and certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5) published.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every processing location and subprocessor European, customer-controlled keys or on-premises operation available, and certifications with their scope published.
The GoBD Auditor
The vendor is Compulink Management Center, Inc., doing business as Laserfiche, of Long Beach, USA — a non-EU contracting entity. We found no public information in the captured legal pages on where the cloud edition stores and processes documents and metadata, on any subprocessor list, or on where the AI features that read document content run. 3 4
The Records Manager
The contracting company is listed in Long Beach, USA, and we found no public information on where documents and their metadata are stored or processed, on the subprocessors, or on where the AI features that read document content run. The captured privacy and terms pages give none of this. 3 4
The IT Integrator
The provenance records Compulink Management Center, Inc. (d/b/a Laserfiche) of Long Beach, USA, while the captured pages leave the contracting entity's jurisdiction unstated; we found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored in the cloud edition, on subprocessors, or on where the AI features that read document content are processed. For an EU deployment I would need answers to all three before signing. 1 3
The Mittelstand Owner
The vendor is Compulink Management Center, Inc. of Long Beach, USA, and we found no public information on where documents are stored or processed, on the ownership structure, or on any subprocessors — including which AI provider reads my invoices; the privacy policy names AI-enabled features without a location. For a German company that is disqualifying before price even comes up. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Compulink Management Center, Inc. of Long Beach, USA, and the captured privacy policy names no storage location for the cloud edition, no subprocessors and no AI provider — even though Smart Fields demonstrably read document content during capture. For a European buyer whose repository holds personnel files and customer contracts, there is no published safeguard, list or location to assess. 1 3 6
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is a US company in Long Beach, and I found no public information on where documents and their metadata are stored in the cloud edition, who the subprocessors are, or where the AI-enabled features that read document content are processed — the privacy policy confirms those AI features exist but states nothing I could find about their location. A self-hosted edition is the one documented thing keeping this off the floor. 3 10
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of a given number of users, storage and modules — including cloud versus on-premises licensing, maintenance, implementation partner fees and price increases — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote comes from sales or a partner.
3 — A "from" price or a single edition priced, but modules, storage, maintenance and partner implementation are unstated — the real cost is unknowable.
5 — Editions priced per user or per month, but at least one commonly needed cost (storage, archiving or workflow module, maintenance percentage, onboarding) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly, storage limits and overage stated, on-premises licence and maintenance terms given, and contract term and notice period published.
10 — Complete cost computability: a configurator or price list covering users, modules, storage and deployment model, partner implementation priced or bounded, and price-increase terms on a public page.
The GoBD Auditor
The captured pricing page lays out the Starter, Business, Business+ and Professional editions with add-ons and per-year AI-unit and transcription allowances, but we found no public information on any price figure for an edition, licence or add-on, so no cost can be computed from these pages. We found no public information on storage limits, maintenance terms, partner implementation fees, or contract term and notice period. 2
The Records Manager
The pricing page is unusually informative on structure — editions with annual AI-unit and transcription quotas, and which modules are add-ons (Vault, DocuSign, Salesforce, the SDK) versus included — but no monetary price for any edition, user, storage tier or add-on appears on the captured pages. A buyer can work out what to buy, not what it will cost, and storage, contract term and partner implementation are unstated. 2
The IT Integrator
The pricing page is usefully structured — Starter, Professional, Business and Business+ with feature inclusions, named add-ons such as DocuSign, Salesforce, the SDK, Vault and Participant Users, and per-plan quotas like AI units and transcription hours — but the captured page shows no price figures, and we found no public information on storage costs, on-premises licensing, maintenance or implementation fees. A buyer can compare plans, not compute a budget. 2
The Mittelstand Owner
The pricing page lays out editions and add-ons more openly than most — which plan includes records management or the audit trail, and the AI units and transcription hours per plan — but we found no public information on any price figure: no per-user cost, no storage limits, no maintenance, no contract term. I still cannot put a number in front of my accountant before the partner visit. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page is detailed on structure — editions with included add-ons, annual AI-unit and transcription-hour limits, file-share expirations — but no price figures for any edition, user, storage tier, maintenance or onboarding appear in the captured material. A buyer can see what is metered but cannot compute what it costs. 2
The Skeptic
A public pricing page names the editions and labels which capabilities are add-ons, even quantifying annual AI-unit and transcription allowances per tier — but not one monetary figure appears on the captured pages: no per-user price, no storage limits or overage, no maintenance terms, no contract or notice period. A buyer can compare feature tiers and nothing else; the actual cost stays with sales. 2
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Laserfiche
Is Laserfiche European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Laserfiche as Rest of world.
Where does Laserfiche store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Laserfiche have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Laserfiche?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates AMAGNO (3/5), Doxis (3/5) and EASY Archive (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 Document Management (DMS) 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 AMAGNO (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Laserfiche alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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. 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.
- 3 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
- 2 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
- 1 compliance 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 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap support.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap support.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.laserfiche.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →