Forms & Surveys
123FormBuilder
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by 123FormBuilder S.R.L. · www.123formbuilder.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.
123FormBuilder at a glance
- Vendor
- 123FormBuilder S.R.L.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 28 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates 123FormBuilder 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. 123FormBuilder S.R.L., a Romanian form builder, scores best on hosting and administration and pricing transparency, both flat at 7, and worst on analysis and reporting at 4. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 28 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 29 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
123FormBuilder S.R.L., a Romanian form builder, scores best on hosting and administration and pricing transparency, both flat at 7, and worst on analysis and reporting at 4. Those 7s rest on an EU signup site hosted by AWS in Germany, Enterprise choice between US and European storage, a tamper-proof audit trail, and a public price ladder — Basic free with no credit card required, Gold $37, Platinum $49, Diamond $99 each 50% off billed yearly, Enterprise starting at $225/month per user billed yearly — plus per-plan limits on submissions and fields. Form building and collection run 6-7 on deep conditional logic, trigger-based emails and payments. Consent and data protection spreads 4 to 5: the 5s credit the GDPR agreement field's design, the 4s weigh unanswered questions on anonymous collection, a data processing agreement, and retention ("as long as the user account exists"). Analysis sits at 4: reports cover all entries, with no public information on cross-tabs or exports. Sovereignty sits at 6: Romanian law and SCCs, offset by AWS's US CLOUD Act exposure and ownership unclear past a Kiteworks headline.
Speaks for it
- Hosting and administration scores a flat 7, on a separate EU signup site hosted by AWS in Germany, Enterprise choice between US and European storage, Enterprise-plan single sign-on over OpenID Connect and SAML, and a tamper-proof audit trail.
- Pricing transparency scores a flat 7, with the ladder public — Basic free with no credit card required, Gold $37, Platinum $49, Diamond $99 each 50% off billed yearly, Enterprise starting at $225/month per user billed yearly — and per-plan limits on submissions, fields and API calls.
- Form building reaches 6-7 on deeply documented conditional logic — three rule types, AND/OR connectors, subrules — plus a formula calculator and more than 3,000 templates.
- Collection and workflows reaches 6-7 on trigger-based emails with delays from minutes to months, conditional recipients, sixteen named payment processors and 45+ native integrations.
- A dedicated GDPR agreement field carries customizable default text and cancels consent automatically when GDPR fields change after publishing.
Held against it
- Analysis and reporting sits at 4, the lowest mark awarded, with reports calculated across all entries and no public information on filters, cross-tabulation, NPS or export formats.
- Consent and data protection runs 4-5, with no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, a published data processing agreement, or retention other than 'as long as the user account exists'.
- The captured pages give different figures for encryption at rest, describing a data-encryption feature as starting from the Diamond/Professional plans.
- Sovereignty sits at 6: AWS is a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations or on ownership beyond a Kiteworks headline.
- The enterprise bill is not computable from public pages: Enterprise is yearly-only starting at $225/month per user, the minimum-user question is unanswered, the captured pages give different figures for submission limits, and an enterprise page offers pricing tailored to your budget.
Best for
- You need EU-hosted collection with enterprise administration — a separate EU signup site hosted by AWS in Germany, single sign-on, custom roles and a tamper-proof audit trail.
- Your team routes responses through approvals, conditional email routing and payments, and analyses results in external tools.
- You want to compare plans on published prices and per-plan limits before buying, starting from a free Basic tier with no credit card required.
- You must embed explicit, revocable GDPR consent inside a form whose branching logic a reviewer can inspect.
Avoid if
- Your analysts need cross-tabulation, segments, NPS or SPSS/Excel exports inside the tool; the captured pages describe aggregate charts across all entries only.
- Your procurement must compute a full per-seat annual cost; Enterprise is yearly-only starting at $225/month per user, with tailored quotes offered and the minimum-user question unanswered on the page.
- Your sovereignty standard excludes a US-headquartered cloud host; AWS is subject to the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region.
- You need an unbranded form on the free Basic plan; that plan requires a backlink to 123FormBuilder.com below every form.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 3 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 3.5 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 2.5 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3.5 of 5 |
Form & survey building
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be built without code: question and field types, conditional logic and branching, piping and hidden fields, calculations, multi-page forms and progress, templates, design and branding, multiple languages, and accessible output for respondents.
0 — Not a form or survey builder; questions cannot be authored in the product.
3 — A builder with the common question types and a few templates; logic, branding or languages are basic or not described.
5 — A drag-and-drop builder with a wide range of question types, conditional logic that shows, hides or skips questions, multi-page forms, a template library, and the customer's logo, colours and fonts.
8 — Advanced logic with piping, hidden fields, calculations and scoring, randomisation, surveys translated into several languages from one master, reusable question libraries, custom CSS or themes, and accessible forms with a named standard (WCAG 2.1 AA or BITV) stated.
10 — Best-in-class authoring: complex research designs (loops, quotas in logic, conjoint or MaxDiff), versioned forms with change history, a published accessibility conformance report, and every element of a form available through the API.
The Market Researcher
The branching documentation is deep — field rules that show or hide fields in real time, subrules, AND and OR connectors with no stated maximum of conditions, form and email rule types, a formula or calculator field and quiz scoring, more than 3,000 templates, and styling control down to padding, fonts and corners. We found no public information on piping or hidden fields, randomisation, multi-page surveys with progress, reusable question libraries, or a stated accessibility standard, so it sits above the mid-level but below research-grade authoring. 2 4 8 11 16
The Operations Manager
The branching guide documents deep conditional logic — field rules that show or hide in real time, subrules, AND/OR connectors with no stated condition cap — plus a formula calculator for order forms, quiz scoring and more than 3,000 templates, all with no coding required. Styling is granular (padding, fonts, backgrounds, corners) with full company branding. We found no public information on multi-page forms, piping or a named accessibility standard, which keeps this below the top tier. 4 8 11 16
The HR Lead
The documented branching goes deep — field rules that show or hide questions in real time, subrules, AND/OR conditions, a formula field for calculations and a quiz score — which covers the skip logic our engagement questionnaire needs, and there are more than 3,000 templates plus styling down to padding, fonts and checkboxes. We found no public information on multi-page surveys, randomisation, reusable question libraries or an accessibility standard such as WCAG. 2 4 8 11 16
The Academic Researcher
The branching is genuinely deep — three rule types with AND/OR connectors, subrules within conditions, no stated condition limit, real-time show/hide during filling, a live preview and a quiz score — which is the kind of logic my ethics board expects to see specified before approval, and the calculator plus field limits rising to 800 per form leave room for long instruments. However, I found no public information on randomisation, piping, hidden fields, reusable question libraries, an accessibility standard or multi-page construction, so this is short of research-grade authoring for survey experiments. 8 11 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The conditional logic is genuinely deep — field rules that show or hide in real time, subrules, AND/OR connectors, form rules that redirect, and a formula calculator — with more than 3,000 templates and styling down to fonts, padding, backgrounds and corners. We found no public information on a named accessibility standard, multi-page forms, randomisation or reusable question libraries, and the documented custom CSS applies to the platform interface rather than to respondent-facing forms. 2 4 8 11 16
The Skeptic
Conditional logic is documented in real depth — field, form and email rules with subrules, AND/OR connectors, no stated cap on conditions and a live preview — alongside a formula calculator, quiz scoring, 3,000+ templates and granular styling of fonts, backgrounds and corners. We found no public information on piping into question text, randomisation, reusable question libraries, multi-page forms or any accessibility standard for respondents, which keeps the builder below research-grade authoring. 2 4 8 11 16
Distribution, response collection & workflows
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How forms reach people and what happens to an answer: share links, embedding, QR codes, email invitations with reminders, contact lists and panels, offline or kiosk collection, file uploads, payments and signatures inside the form, notifications, approval or assignment of submissions, and automations that pass a response on to other tools.
0 — No way to collect responses from other people; the product only analyses data collected elsewhere.
3 — A share link and an embed code, with responses visible in the product; invitations, notifications and onward workflows are basic or not described.
5 — Links, embedding and QR codes, email notifications on submission, file uploads, a few native integrations (spreadsheets, CRM, chat) plus a connector service such as Zapier or Make, and either email invitations with reminders or payments inside the form.
8 — Invitations to managed contact lists with reminders and unique links, response quotas and closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, submissions routed for approval or assignment, conditional notifications, documented webhooks and a REST API to read and write responses.
10 — Collection at research and process scale: panel or sample sourcing, multi-channel distribution (email, SMS, web, app intercept) with deduplication, workflows with branching and audit trail, and every response event exposed to the customer's systems in real time with a stated delivery guarantee.
The Market Researcher
There is a real workflow layer: embedding on sites such as Wix and Shopify, notification templates up to fifteen per plan, conditional email recipients, trigger-based emails with delays from minutes to months, a submission-approval option that auto-creates three emails, file uploads, sixteen payment processors and Zapier, with API calls metered per plan. For my study waves, we found no public information on email invitations with reminders to managed contact lists, QR codes, response quotas or closing rules, so it stays above the standard tier without reaching the top. 2 7 8 10 11 16
The Operations Manager
This is where the product earns its keep for me: conditional email routing to the right inbox, trigger-based notifications on submission, payment and approval events with delays from minutes to months, and 45+ native integrations including Salesforce, Google Sheets and Zapier, so a damage report with photos lands where it should without copy and paste. Payments run through a long list of named processors with sandbox testing, and file uploads are evidenced by the Dropbox integration. We found no public information on invitations with reminders to managed lists, response quotas with closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, or webhooks. 2 8 10 11 16
The HR Lead
Approvals with automatically created emails, triggers on submission, payment or approval with delays from minutes to months, conditional recipients, file uploads pushed to Dropbox, and payments through a long list of named processors give a real workflow behind each response, and paid plans come with unlimited API calls. We found no public information on invitations to managed contact lists with reminders, unique respondent links or offline collection. 2 8 10 11 16
The Academic Researcher
Trigger-based notifications with delays from minutes to months, approval and rejection routing, conditional email recipients, e-signature, file uploads and a very long list of payment processors cover the workflow side well, and the plan matrix publishes API call allowances up to unlimited. I found no public information on managed invitations with reminders and unique respondent links, response quotas and closing rules, QR codes, offline collection or documented webhooks, which a panel study would rely on. 10 11 8 16 2
The Data Protection Officer
Submissions can be routed for approval with automatic approval and rejection emails, notifications trigger on submission or payment with delays from minutes to months, recipients can be routed conditionally, payments run through sixteen processors including PayPal and Stripe, an electronic signature feature exists, and more than forty-five native integrations plus Zapier pass data onward with API calls metered per plan. We found no public information on invitations to managed contact lists with reminders, QR codes, offline or kiosk collection, or documented webhooks. 2 8 10 11 16
The Skeptic
Payments are the strong suit — PayPal, Stripe, Square, Braintree, Worldpay and more, with sandbox testing, order summaries and per-field discounts and taxes — and workflows go beyond basics with trigger-based emails, delays from minutes to months, conditional recipients and a submission approval flow, on top of 45+ native integrations including Zapier and an API metered per plan. We found no public information on managed email invitations with reminders, response quotas and closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, or documented webhooks, so we cannot place collection at research scale. 2 7 10 11 16
Survey analysis & reporting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the product does with the answers: live results and charts, filters and segments, cross-tabulation, NPS, CSAT and other standard scores, open-text and sentiment analysis, shareable dashboards and reports, and exports to the formats analysts use (CSV, Excel, SPSS, R).
0 — No view of results inside the product; submissions can only be forwarded or downloaded one at a time.
3 — A table of responses with simple charts per question and a CSV export; filters, comparisons and report sharing are basic or not described.
5 — Charts per question, filters and segments, at least one comparison or cross-tab view, standard scores such as NPS, shareable or exportable reports (PDF, presentation), and exports to CSV and Excel.
8 — Cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, open-text coding or sentiment analysis, trend reports across survey waves, dashboards for different audiences with permissions, and SPSS or R exports with labels.
10 — A research-grade analysis environment: statistical models beyond cross-tabs (driver analysis, regression), benchmarks, text analytics with themes the customer can edit, and every analysis reproducible from documented exports or an analytics API.
The Market Researcher
Custom reports let me choose a chart type per field, add widgets, duplicate a report or set it as default, and public reports update automatically for an audience — but they are calculated across all entries with no per-respondent view. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, NPS or other standard scores, open-text or sentiment analysis, or exports to CSV, Excel or SPSS, so my cross-tabs and theme groupings would all happen outside the product. 2 13
The Operations Manager
Reports let a colleague choose chart types field by field, add widgets, duplicate and share them with auto-updating public versions. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, NPS or other standard scores, or exports to CSV, Excel or SPSS, so I cannot see my analyst getting full value from the captured pages. 13
The HR Lead
Custom reports let me add fields one by one with a chosen chart type, add widgets and publish an auto-updating version to an audience, and quiz forms carry a score — but the documentation states reports are calculated for all entries received on the form, and we found no public information on filters, segments or cross-tabs to cut results per department. We also found no public information on NPS or other standard scores, open-text analysis, or export formats for our analysts. 8 13
The Academic Researcher
Reports are per-field charts with customisable chart types, widgets, duplication and automatic updates for public audiences, but the documentation itself states reports are calculated for all entries received rather than per respondent or segment. I found no public information on cross-tabulation, significance testing, weighting, open-text analysis, or exports — nothing on SPSS or R with value labels intact, which is non-negotiable for my faculty, and even a basic spreadsheet export is not described. 13
The Data Protection Officer
Custom reports can be assembled field by field with a chosen chart type and widgets, public reports update automatically, and reports can be duplicated, edited or set as default — though they aggregate all entries rather than showing a single respondent. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, standard scores such as NPS, open-text or sentiment analysis, or export formats such as CSV, Excel or SPSS. 13
The Skeptic
Custom reports let you pick fields one by one with your preferred chart type, add widgets and share them publicly with automatic updates — though the vendor's own answer is that reports cover all entries received, not individual respondents. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, NPS or sentiment scoring, or any export format for analysts, so this is shareable charts rather than an analysis environment. 12 13
Consent, GDPR & respondent data
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the product gives the customer to collect personal data lawfully: consent and privacy-notice fields, anonymous surveys that really drop IP addresses and identifiers, retention periods and automatic deletion, handling of access and erasure requests, encryption of responses, a data processing agreement, and controls over cookies and tracking on the form itself.
0 — The product collects no personal data from respondents, so there is nothing to protect; or it is a different kind of product.
3 — A privacy policy and a statement of GDPR compliance, with a checkbox field usable for consent; anonymity, retention and deletion are not described.
5 — A data processing agreement offered to customers, a consent or privacy-notice field, an anonymous mode that does not store IP addresses, responses deletable by the customer, and encryption in transit and at rest stated.
8 — Retention periods with automatic deletion, tools for access and erasure requests per respondent, field-level encryption or masking of sensitive answers, forms that set no tracking cookies by default, a published list of technical and organisational measures, and a named data protection officer.
10 — Data protection by design and evidenced: end-to-end or customer-key encryption of responses, documented data minimisation defaults, a DPA with audit rights and subprocessor change notice, records of consent kept with each response, and an independent audit of the privacy controls published.
The Market Researcher
The GDPR agreement field is genuinely usable for research consent — customisable default text, required and checked-by-default options, a readonly mode, and consent cancelled if the fields change after publishing — with 256-bit SSL/AES encryption in transit and at rest stated and data-subject requests answered within one month, extendable by two. The captured pages give different figures for encryption at rest, since a data-encryption feature is described as starting from the Diamond/Professional plans, and we found no public information on an anonymous mode that does not store IP addresses, a data processing agreement, or customer-side deletion of responses. 4 5 6 14 15
The Operations Manager
A dedicated GDPR agreement field with a customizable default text, required by default, whose consent is cancelled if GDPR fields change after publishing, is a genuinely thoughtful mechanism, backed by 256-bit SSL/AES encryption on all plans and a field-level data encryption feature from the Diamond plan up. The vendor answers access, erasure and other rights requests within a month, extendable by two. We found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, a published data processing agreement, or retention controls the customer sets. 5 6 14 15
The HR Lead
A dedicated GDPR agreement field with editable default text, consent cancelled when fields change after publishing, freely revocable consent, and 256-bit encryption in transit and at rest — plus an extra data-encryption feature for sensitive answers on higher plans — are all documented. For a works-council-approved survey I still need more: we found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, on hiding results below a minimum group size, or on automatic deletion after a fixed period — the terms state data is processed as long as the user account exists. 4 5 6 14 15
The Academic Researcher
There is a dedicated GDPR agreement field with customisable default text, required and read-only options, explicit guidance against pre-checked consent boxes, and the rule that changes to GDPR fields after publishing cancel consent — exactly the informed-consent page that belongs inside the instrument, plus 256-bit SSL/AES encryption on all plans, ISO 27001, and data subject rights with stated response times. I found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, automatic retention deletion, a data processing agreement, cookie and tracking controls on the form, or a named data protection officer. 14 15 5 6 4
The Data Protection Officer
The consent tooling is more serious than a bare checkbox: a dedicated GDPR agreement field with editable default text, required by default, guidance not to pre-check terms checkboxes, and any post-publish change to GDPR fields cancels consent; 256-bit SSL/AES encryption in transit and at rest is stated, with a stronger data-at-rest encryption feature gated to the Diamond and Professional plans and up. I found no public information on a data processing agreement, an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, or retention periods that delete responses on their own — the only documented rule processes data as long as the user account exists, with backups held 30 days — so this would not pass my desk for anything touching health or special-category data without those answers. 4 5 6 14 15
The Skeptic
The consent tooling is genuinely thought through — a dedicated GDPR agreement field with editable default text, consent cancelled if the fields change after publishing, and explicit advice against pre-checked boxes — and 256-bit SSL covers forms on every plan. But we found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, a published data processing agreement, or automatic retention deletion — the stated rule is processing "as long as the user account exists" — and the captured pages give different figures for encryption at rest, with an added encryption feature only from the Diamond/Professional plans. 5 6 14 15
Hosting choice, teams & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the customer may choose about where and how the product runs and who uses it: a selectable data region or EU-only hosting, self-hosting or an on-premise edition, team workspaces with roles and permissions, single sign-on, an audit log, custom domains and white-labelling, and a complete export of forms and responses that another tool can import.
0 — A single-user tool with no export of forms or responses.
3 — Shared access for a team and a response export; data location, roles and single sign-on are not described.
5 — Hosting location stated with an EU option, team workspaces with at least two roles, single sign-on on a higher plan, a custom domain or removed vendor branding, and an export of all responses.
8 — EU-only hosting selectable per account or a self-hosted edition, granular roles per form or folder, SSO with SAML and user provisioning, an audit log, white-labelling, and forms and responses exportable in a documented format with an API.
10 — Full control over operation: an open-source or on-premise edition with feature parity, customer-chosen region per workspace, administrative APIs, a documented migration path in and out, and an uptime commitment with a published status history.
The Market Researcher
Between the separate EU platform on AWS in Germany, US and Europe residency choice on enterprise plans, single sign-on over OpenID Connect and SAML, a tamper-proof audit trail covering logins, deletions, field edits and submissions, custom roles on Enterprise, white-labelling and a custom domain, I can run a team under European hosting with real oversight. What keeps it from the top is portability and depth: we found no public information on a documented export format for forms and responses, user provisioning, or roles granular per form or folder. 2 3 5 6 16
The Operations Manager
A separate EU signup site hosted by AWS in Germany, data residency choice on Enterprise plans, single sign-on through OpenID Connect and SAML with Azure and Google, a tamper-proof audit trail covering logins, deletions, field edits and submissions, custom roles, a custom domain and white-labelling give me most of what I need to run this across a team. We found no public information on user provisioning, a self-hosted edition, or a documented export format for forms and responses, though API call limits per plan imply programmatic access. 2 3 5 6 16
The HR Lead
Our IT colleagues get most of what they ask for: a separate EU signup site hosted by AWS in Germany, data residency choice on Enterprise, single sign-on over SAML and OpenID Connect, custom user roles, multifactor authentication, a tamper-proof audit trail of logins and submissions, white-labelling with a custom domain, and a guaranteed uptime of 99,99% for Enterprise customers. We found no public information on a documented export format for forms and responses, or a self-hosted edition. 2 3 5 6 16
The Academic Researcher
A separate EU platform hosted on AWS in Germany, data residency choice between US and Europe on Enterprise plans, single sign-on over OpenID Connect and SAML, custom user roles, a tamper-proof audit trail, custom domains and white-labelling give my faculty most of what it needs to keep studies in the EU. I found no public information on a self-hosted edition, user provisioning, or a documented export of forms and responses that another tool could import, and the 99,99 percent uptime commitment is stated for Enterprise customers only. 6 5 16 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
An EU option exists as a separate signup site hosted by AWS in Germany, Enterprise plans choose between US and European storage, and single sign-on with SAML and OpenID Connect, custom user roles, a tamper-proof audit trail over logins, deletions, field edits and submissions, white-labelling with custom domain and a guaranteed 99.99% uptime for Enterprise customers are all stated. We found no public information on a documented export format for forms and responses or on user provisioning, so portability out is less evidenced than control in. 3 5 6 16 17
The Skeptic
A real EU option exists — a separate EU site hosted by AWS in Germany, plus data residency choice on Enterprise plans — alongside SAML/OpenID Connect single sign-on, custom user roles, a tamper-proof audit trail over logins, edits and deletions, and white-labelling with custom domains. We found no public information on a self-hosted edition, user provisioning, or a documented export format for forms and responses; and on the Basic plan a backlink to 123FormBuilder.com is required under every form. 2 3 5 6 16
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where forms and responses are hosted, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, email delivery, payment providers, analytics, AI features). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; responses often carry personal and sometimes special-category data, so the whole chain counts, not only the database.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.
5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (email, analytics, AI features, support) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.
The Market Researcher
The contracting entity is 123FormBuilder S.R.L., incorporated under Romanian law with Romanian courts named for disputes, hosting runs on AWS with a German EU site and a Frankfurt region, ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 are stated, and standard contractual clauses carry transfers. Beyond hosting the chain is thin: we found no public information on a full subprocessor list with locations or the location of the 2Checkout payment processor, on a published data processing agreement, or on ownership beyond a headline about joining forces with Kiteworks, while AWS remains a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region. 3 4 5 6
The Operations Manager
The contracting entity is 123FormBuilder S.R.L., incorporated under Romanian law in Timisoara with Romanian governing law, and customers can host on named AWS infrastructure in Frankfurt or on a German-hosted EU site, with ISO 27001 certification stated. The chain is not clean end to end: AWS is a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region, with standard contractual clauses as the stated safeguard. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations, a data processing agreement, or the ownership structure beyond a page announcing the company joins forces with Kiteworks. 3 4 5 6 8
The HR Lead
The contracting entity is 123FormBuilder S.R.L. under Romanian law with exclusive jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, and an EU-hosted option on named AWS infrastructure in Germany or Frankfurt is documented, with standard contractual clauses for transfers and ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 certification stated. The chain is not fully evidenced, though — AWS is a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region, no subprocessor list with locations is published, and a page mentions 123FormBuilder joining forces with Kiteworks while ownership is not documented. 3 5 6 8
The Academic Researcher
The contracting entity is 123FormBuilder S.R.L. under Romanian law with exclusive jurisdiction of Romanian courts, founded in Timișoara, with hosting on named AWS regions including Frankfurt through a dedicated EU site, and ISO 27001 plus ISO 9001 stated. There is no published subprocessor list with locations — only AWS and the payment processor 2Checkout appear — the US-headquartered host sits under the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region, and I found no public information on ownership beyond an announcement that 123FormBuilder joins forces with Kiteworks. 6 5 4 16
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is 123FormBuilder S.R.L. under Romanian law with disputes in Romanian courts, hosting can sit on named AWS infrastructure in Frankfurt or Germany, and ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 certifications and standard contractual clauses are stated. No subprocessor list with locations is published beyond the hosting, I found no public information on a data processing agreement on the captured pages, and AWS remains a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region; the captured pages announce the company joining forces with Kiteworks without stating the resulting ownership. 3 4 5 6
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is 123FormBuilder S.R.L. under Romanian law with Romanian courts, the EU site runs on named AWS infrastructure in Frankfurt/Germany, ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 are stated, and standard contractual clauses are relied on for transfers. The chain is not European end to end: AWS is a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act regardless of server region, payments run through 2Checkout, we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations or a published data processing agreement, and ownership is left unclear by the vendor's own headline that it "Joins Forces with Kiteworks". 3 5 6 8
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per plan and per user, response or submission limits and what happens above them, which features (logic, branding removal, SSO, EU hosting, analysis modules) need a higher plan, add-ons, minimum term and the free tier's limits.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with users, responses or features is unclear.
5 — Plans are public with prices and their main limits (users, responses, forms), but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, EU hosting, extra responses, branding removal) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every plan priced publicly with its limits, overage or extra-response prices, feature differences per plan in a comparison table, billing period, VAT treatment and cancellation terms stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of users, responses and features, with every add-on, enterprise option, support level and data-return term published.
The Market Researcher
The ladder is public — Basic free with no credit card, Gold $37, Platinum $49 and Diamond $99 with 50% off billed yearly, Enterprise starting at $225/month per user billed yearly and Compliance at $255 — and the features matrix spells out monthly submissions, fields per form, users, API calls and templates per plan, with VAT treatment, automatic renewal 14 days before term end, and a 30-day money-back guarantee with its exclusions documented. A full annual cost model still needs pieces we found no public prices for — extra-response or overage charges, SMS and PDF layout credits, additional user licences — and the captured pages give different figures for submission limits, with per-plan monthly caps on the features page and an unlimited forms and submissions claim on the enterprise page. 2 3 6 16
The Operations Manager
The features matrix publishes prices and limits for every plan — monthly submissions from 100 on the free tier to 100,000 on Diamond, fields per form, users, email templates and API calls — with EU VAT treatment, automatic renewal 14 days before term end and a 30-day money-back guarantee all stated. For my worry about response-count price jumps the caps are at least visible, though growing past 5,000 or 20,000 monthly submissions means stepping up a plan tier. We found no public information on overage or extra-response prices or the price of extra users and SMS credits, and Enterprise is listed as starting at $225 per user monthly, billed yearly, so the top end is not fully computable. 2 3 6
The HR Lead
Plan prices and limits are public: a free Basic tier with 100 monthly submissions, Gold at $18.5 per month billed yearly up to Diamond at $49.5, Enterprise starting at $225/month per user billed yearly with unlimited submissions, plus VAT treatment, automatic renewal 14 days before the term ends and a 30-day money-back guarantee in the terms. What I cannot compute is the price of additional users or what happens above the monthly submission caps, and an enterprise page offers pricing tailored to the budget. 2 3 6 16
The Academic Researcher
Plan prices are public with a comparison matrix covering monthly submissions, fields per form, users, API calls and email templates per tier, and the terms state VAT treatment, automatic renewal fourteen days before term end, a 30-day money-back guarantee with its exclusions, and refund deductions. What I cannot compute is what happens above the monthly submission caps, overage or extra-user prices, and the Enterprise page itself advertises a plan tailored to your budget, so the real annual cost for a research group is not fully derivable. 2 3 6 16
The Data Protection Officer
Plan prices and limits are public in a comparison table — Basic free, Gold $37, Platinum $49, Diamond $99 before the 50% yearly discount, with monthly submissions from 100 to 100,000, fields per form, users, integrations, notification templates and API calls per plan — and VAT treatment, automatic renewal 14 days before term end, the 30-day money-back guarantee and its exclusions are all stated. The Enterprise and Compliance tiers are starting at $225 and $255 per user per month billed yearly with no monthly option and the minimum-user question left unanswered on the page, and we found no public information on overage or extra-response prices, so the top end cannot be computed from public pages alone. 2 3 6 16
The Skeptic
Unusually public: plans are priced with their limits in a comparison table — "Gold $37 50% OFF $18.5 per month / billed yearly", fields per form from 10 to unlimited, monthly submissions from 100 to unlimited, API calls per plan — and the terms spell out EU VAT treatment, automatic renewal 14 days before term end, a 30-day money-back guarantee with its exclusions, and a 6% deduction on unwanted-renewal refunds. What a buyer still cannot compute: overage or extra-response pricing, and the real enterprise bill — "Starting at $225/month Per user, billed yearly" with the minimum-users question unanswered and a page offering "a pricing plan tailored to your budget". 2 3 6 16
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about 123FormBuilder
Is 123FormBuilder European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies 123FormBuilder as EU-Made.
Where does 123FormBuilder store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
Does 123FormBuilder have a free plan?
Yes. 123FormBuilder has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to 123FormBuilder?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Formbricks (4/5), easyfeedback (3.5/5) and Netigate (3.5/5) highest among the other 19 Forms & Surveys 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 Formbricks (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: 123FormBuilder alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 28 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 — Data processing agreement, Hosting options. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Hosting location. The pages never state which region is the default; S3 and S7 indicate EU hosting requires signing up on the separate EU platform/site, implying the main platform may default to the US.
- 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.
- 32 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
- 7 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
- 7 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
- 5 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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 (17)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing page (enterprise plans) www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 GDPR page www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Security page www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Terms of service and privacy notice www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Company page www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Form & survey building — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Form & survey building — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 17 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap www.123formbuilder.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →