Forms & Surveys
Alchemer
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Alchemer · www.alchemer.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.
Alchemer at a glance
- Vendor
- Alchemer
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Alchemer 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Alchemer is an online survey and form platform whose authoring earns its strongest scores: form building scores 7-8, the highest of any criterion, on forty-three documented question types including choice-based conjoint and MaxDiff, question logic, merge-code piping and multilingual surveys. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Alchemer is an online survey and form platform whose authoring earns its strongest scores: form building scores 7-8, the highest of any criterion, on forty-three documented question types including choice-based conjoint and MaxDiff, question logic, merge-code piping and multilingual surveys. Analysis and reporting scores 6-7, carried by an SPSS export that writes.SAV files with variable names and value labels set up automatically, alongside CSV, Excel, PDF, FTP delivery and an AI-powered shareable dashboard. Collection and workflows and hosting and administration sit in the same 6-7 band: kiosk mode, offline collection, website intercepts and SAML single sign-on with automatic user creation. The sharpest finding is negative and consistent — consent and data protection and sovereignty each score a flat 4, because beyond documented encryption and named US, EU and CA data centers, the judges found no public information on a data processing agreement, retention, anonymous collection, the contracting entity or certifications. The judges did not meaningfully split — spreads run at most one point — and persona-weighted totals range 5.1 to 6.5. Pricing transparency scores 2-3; no plan carries a public price.
Speaks for it
- Form building reaches forty-three documented question types — choice-based conjoint, MaxDiff, card sorts — with question logic, merge-code piping and multilingual surveys.
- Exports write SPSS.SAV files with variable names and value labels set up automatically, plus CSV, Excel, PDF, FTP delivery and scheduled email to up to five addresses.
- Encryption is documented in depth: 256-bit at rest including backups, SSL in transit, and an optional per-survey application-level layer recommended for PHI.
- Collection spans links, HTML, iframe and JavaScript embeds, QR codes, kiosk mode, offline collection, website intercepts and email campaigns with unique links.
- White-labelling runs deep — private domains, custom favicon and SMTP, Powered By logo off by default on paid accounts — alongside SAML single sign-on with automatic user creation.
Held against it
- Consent and data protection scores a flat 4; we found no public information on a data processing agreement, consent fields, anonymous collection, retention or deletion.
- Sovereignty scores 4 as well: data centers in the US, EU and Canada are named, and we found no public information on the contracting entity, subprocessor locations or certifications.
- We found no public information on webhooks, a response API, reminders or approval routing, so responses move onward only through exports, scheduled email, FTP or the Klaviyo integration.
- We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting or open-text coding, so that analysis would live outside the product.
- No plan carries a price figure, response limit or per-user cost on the captured pages, and single sign-on is available to business platform customers by contact.
Best for
- You build research-grade questionnaires — conjoint, MaxDiff, card sorts, validated scales — and need multilingual surveys and SPSS exports with labels intact.
- You collect on-site or in the field, where kiosk mode, offline collection with later upload, QR codes and website intercepts fit.
- You want surveys, reports and emails white-labelled under your own domain, with your own SMTP and favicon.
- Your organisation manages many users and wants SAML 2.0 single sign-on with automatic user creation on the business platform.
Avoid if
- You must satisfy an ethics board or works council with documented retention, anonymisation, consent fields and a data processing agreement before collecting personal or special-category data.
- You need to evidence the full chain — contracting entity, subprocessor locations, security certifications — not only hosting regions of US, EU or Canada.
- You need responses pushed automatically into other systems; the documented outward paths are exports, scheduled email, FTP and the Klaviyo integration.
- You expect significance-tested cross-tabs, weighting or open-text coding inside the product rather than in external tools.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 4 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 3.5 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 3 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 2 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 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
Forty-three question types are documented, including choice-based conjoint and MaxDiff — exactly the research designs my waves use — alongside piping via merge codes, question logic, card sorts and shareable translations. An accessible-text export for Braille printing and a screen-reader-accessible ranking variant are described, though the captured pages name no accessibility standard and give no information on form versioning or randomisation. 1 2 6 3
The Operations Manager
Forty-three documented question types cover everything my paper-replacement forms need — file upload for photos, signatures, contact forms, cascading dropdowns — plus research-grade conjoint and MaxDiff, question logic, piping through merge codes and URL variables, translated surveys and save-and-continue. We found no public information on custom CSS, reusable question libraries, versioned forms with change history, a published accessibility conformance report, or form elements available through an API. 1 2 3 6
The HR Lead
Forty-three question types are documented, including choice-based conjoint, Max Diff, card sorts and image heatmaps, with question logic, piping through merge codes and URL variables, multi-language surveys via the Text and Translations tool, and theme styling for the survey and application. Accessible output exists in a Braille-printable export and a screen-reader alternative for ranking grids, though we found no public information on randomisation, reusable question libraries, custom CSS or a named accessibility standard. 1 2 6 3 10
The Academic Researcher
For a questionnaire researcher this is close to ideal: the documented catalogue lists forty-three question types including choice-based conjoint, MaxDiff, card sorts and the grid and table variants I use for validated scales, with question logic, merge-code piping, URL variables for hidden data and a Text and Translations tool for multilingual masters. What keeps me from going higher is research-critical: I found no public information on randomisation of question or answer order, reusable question libraries, version history, or a named accessibility standard — only a Braille-printable export and a screen-reader alternative for the ranking grid. 1 2 6 3
The Data Protection Officer
Forty-three question types including choice-based conjoint and MaxDiff, question logic, merge-code piping, and options for sharing translated surveys make this genuinely advanced authoring. We found no public information on randomisation, reusable question libraries, custom CSS, or a named accessibility standard such as WCAG, though a Braille-printable accessible text export is documented. 1 2 3 6
The Skeptic
Forty-three question types are documented, including choice-based conjoint, MaxDiff and three card-sort variants — that is research-grade authoring — with question logic, merge codes for piping, URL variables and multi-language surveys around them. We found no public information on a named accessibility standard (a Braille-printable export and a screen-reader-friendly ranking grid are the only signals), on custom CSS or on question randomisation, so I stop at the advanced level the pages actually prove. 1 2 6 3
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
Email campaigns with unique links, kiosk mode, offline collection, QR codes, three embed styles and website intercepts are all documented, with custom SMTP and SPF handling for deliverability. The captured pages give no information on invitation reminders, closing rules tied to quotas, approval routing, or webhooks and a response API. 3 4 2 10
The Operations Manager
Collection is broad — share links, HTML, iframe and JavaScript embeds, QR codes, kiosk mode, offline surveys that upload when back online, website intercepts, file uploads of up to ten files, and email campaigns with unique links — and segmented quotas are implied. What I cannot find is the onward workflow: no public information on payments inside the form, submission notifications, approval routing, webhooks or a REST API, so a response reaches my spreadsheet or CRM only through exports, scheduled emails, FTP or the Klaviyo integration. 2 3 4 5 6
The HR Lead
Generic links, three embed styles, QR codes, email campaigns with unique links (usable in Mailchimp), kiosk mode, offline collection, website intercepts, paper download, file uploads and signature capture are all documented, alongside segmented quotas and a workflow connection to Klaviyo. We found no public information on invitation reminders, approval routing for submissions, or documented webhooks and an API for passing responses onward. 3 4 2 6 8
The Academic Researcher
Email campaigns to respondent lists with unique links, QR codes, three embed styles, kiosk mode, offline collection with later upload and website intercept cover the multi-channel fieldwork my studies need, and file uploads plus in-survey signatures are documented. Quotas surface only as a compatibility note in the encryption documentation, and I found no public information on reminders within campaigns, closing rules, approval routing, or documented webhooks and a REST API to pull responses. 3 4 2 8
The Data Protection Officer
Links, three embed methods, QR codes, email campaigns with unique links, website intercept, kiosk mode, offline collection, file uploads and in-form signatures are all documented, which reaches well beyond basic sharing. We found no public information on invitation reminders, response quotas and closing rules, approval routing, conditional notifications, or documented webhooks and a REST API. 2 3 4 6
The Skeptic
Links, HTML, iframe and JavaScript embeds, QR codes, kiosk mode, offline collection, website intercept and email campaigns with unique links are all documented, plus a ten-file upload question, signatures and quotas that surface in a compatibility warning. But we found no public information on reminders, approval routing, conditional notifications, webhooks, a response API or payments inside the form, and I do not credit workflows the pages do not show. 3 4 2 8
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
Exports are strong for a research buyer: SPSS files with variable and value labels set up automatically, filterable and schedulable exports, status filters, and a real-time AI-powered dashboard shareable internally and externally. I found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, or open-text theming, so the analysis my board expects would live outside the product. 5 6 2 10
The Operations Manager
Exports are strong — Excel and CSV with filtering by answer and date range, scheduled and emailed to up to five addresses, an FTP option, and SPSS.SAV files that arrive with variable names, types and value labels — and reports filter by response status with a real-time, shareable AI dashboard on top. We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, trend reports or open-text sentiment analysis. 5 6
The HR Lead
Styleable reports and charts with filtering by answer, date range and response status, dashboards that are real-time and shareable with internal teams and external stakeholders, plus scheduled exports to up to five email addresses in CSV, Excel, PDF and SPSS (a.SAV export that sets up variable names, types, titles and value labels automatically). We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, or open-text coding and sentiment analysis. 5 6 2
The Academic Researcher
The SPSS export writes directly to the.SAV format with variable names, types, titles and value labels set up automatically — labels intact is exactly what my faculty needs for SPSS and R — alongside CSV and Excel exports with filtering by answer, date and response status, scheduled delivery and an FTP option. Real-time, AI-powered dashboards with internal and external sharing and NPS scoring are documented; I found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, or open-text coding and sentiment analysis of answers. 5 6 2 10
The Data Protection Officer
Reports and results charts with filtering by answer, date and response status, shareable and schedulable exports to CSV, Excel and SPSS with automatic variable and value labels, and dashboards shareable with internal teams and external stakeholders are documented. We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, open-text sentiment coding, or trend reports across survey waves. 5 6 10
The Skeptic
Exports are the strong suit: SPSS.sav with automatic variable names and value labels, CSV and Excel, filtered, scheduled and FTP-delivered, alongside styled reports, results charts, response-status filtering and an AI-powered real-time dashboard shared internally or with external stakeholders. We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, open-text coding or trend reports, so the score sits just below the research-grade tier. 5 6 10
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
Encryption is documented in depth — in transit, at rest, 256-bit including backups — plus an optional per-survey application-level layer recommended for health information. Beyond a checkbox question type, the captured pages give no information on consent fields, anonymous collection, retention and automatic deletion, or a data processing agreement. 8 2
The Operations Manager
Encryption is documented twice over — SSL in transit, 256-bit at rest including backups, and an optional per-survey application-level Response Data Encryption recommended for personal health information. Beyond that, we found no public information on consent or privacy-notice fields, an anonymous mode, retention periods and automatic deletion, handling of access and erasure requests, or a data processing agreement. 8
The HR Lead
Encryption is documented in depth: 256-bit disk-level encryption at rest including backups, sha256 with RSA in transit, and an optional per-survey application-level response encryption controlled by Account Administrators, locked once data is collected and recommended for health information. For my works-council needs, we found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses and identifiers, retention periods with automatic deletion, a data processing agreement, or consent and privacy-notice fields. 8
The Academic Researcher
Encryption is documented in real depth: 256-bit at rest including backups, SSL in transit, and a per-survey, administrator-enabled application-level response encryption that the vendor recommends for personal health information. Beyond that, the captured facts give me nothing on a data processing agreement, a consent or privacy-notice field, anonymous collection without stored IP addresses, retention with automatic deletion, or per-respondent access and erasure requests — the captured page on anonymous surveys yielded no confirmed detail. For an ethics-board submission that is not enough on paper, however strong the encryption story is. 8 7
The Data Protection Officer
Encryption is documented thoroughly: 256-bit at rest including backups, SSL in transit, and an optional per-survey application-level encryption of responses that the vendor itself recommends for personal health information. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, consent or privacy-notice fields, an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, retention periods that delete on their own, or tools for respondent access and erasure requests — before any department collects personal data here, I would need those on the vendor's own pages. 8
The Skeptic
Encryption is real and candidly described: 256-bit at rest with encrypted backups, SSL in transit, and an optional per-survey application-level encryption recommended for PHI that locks once data is collected and visibly slows the app. Everything else I look for is dark — we found no public information on a data processing agreement, consent fields, anonymous collection that drops identifiers, retention, deletion or a data protection officer. 8
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
Data centers in the US, EU and Canada are named with EU accounts explicitly referenced, SAML single sign-on with automatic user creation is documented for business platform customers, and white-labelling runs deep from private domains to favicon and application theme. The captured pages give no information on an audit log or granular per-form roles, and exports are described without an API. 9 10 5
The Operations Manager
Data centres in the US, EU and Canada, SAML single sign-on tested against six identity providers with automatic user creation and login restriction, and deep white-labelling — private domains, custom favicon, custom SMTP, vendor logo removed by default on paid accounts — sit alongside at least two user roles (Account Administrator, Stakeholder). We found no public information on an audit log, granular per-form roles, a self-hosted edition, or a documented import and export format with an API. 8 9 10
The HR Lead
Data centres in the US, EU and Canada are named, SAML single sign-on is supported across tested identity providers with automatic user creation and attribute-driven user fields on the business platform, and private domains, favicon and branding removal give real white-labelling, with responses exportable in CSV, Excel, SPSS, PDF and via FTP. We found no public information on an audit log, granular per-form or per-folder roles, a self-hosted edition, or a documented API for export. 9 10 5
The Academic Researcher
Accounts run in a chosen data centre among US, EU and CA with aliases not crossing regions, SAML single sign-on is supported with tested identity providers, login restriction and automatic user creation, and white-labelling is thorough — private domains, favicon, from-address and theme control, with the vendor logo off by default on paid accounts. Account Administrators and stakeholders indicate role tiers, and responses export to CSV, Excel and SPSS. I found no public information on an audit log, granular per-form permissions, a self-hosted edition, or an API for moving forms in and out. 9 10 5
The Data Protection Officer
Data centers in the US, EU and Canada, SAML single sign-on for both staff and respondents with automatic user creation, administrator and stakeholder roles, private domains, white-labelling with vendor-logo removal, and full response exports are documented. We found no public information on an audit log, granular per-form permissions, a self-hosted edition, or a form export another tool could import. 5 9 10
The Skeptic
EU, US and CA data centers are named, SAML 2.0 single sign-on works with the major identity providers with unlimited integrations and automatic user creation, private domains and removal of the Powered By logo sit on named plans, and responses export in documented formats. White-labelling is partial by the vendor's own words — test-tab links 'will give default alchemer.com links' — and we found no public information on an audit log, granular per-form roles or an API. 9 10 5
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 captured pages prove only one dimension: hosting regions of US, EU and Canada, with EU accounts in use. We found no public information on the contracting entity, the subprocessor chain beyond the named video-response provider, a data processing agreement, or security certifications, so the chain cannot be assessed end to end. 9 2
The Operations Manager
The captured pages prove only that data centres exist in the US, EU and Canada and that video responses run through VoxPopMe. We found no public information on the contracting entity or parent company, where subprocessors sit, a data processing agreement, or security certifications, so EU hosting appears available but nothing more of the chain is evidenced. 2 9
The HR Lead
Hosting regions are stated as US, EU and CA, and the video-feedback add-on names its provider, VoxPopMe, which is a rare named subprocessor. Beyond that the chain is dark: we found no public information on the contracting entity or parent company, other subprocessors for email, analytics or the AI dashboard, a data processing agreement, or security certifications such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2. 9 2
The Academic Researcher
The one link in the chain the facts prove is hosting: US, EU and CA data centres, so a European region is available for responses. Nothing documents the contracting entity or parent, the subprocessors behind email delivery, analytics or the AI dashboard features, a data processing agreement, or any certification — and one capture notes the built-in Okta integration supports US-based production only. For special-category questionnaire data I need the whole chain evidenced, not just a region selector. 9
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages prove data centers in the US, EU and Canada, so an EU-hosted account appears possible, and they name VoxPopMe as powering the video question type. We found no public information on the contracting entity or parent company, a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list with locations, or security certifications — that is not a chain I can sign off for special-category data yet. 2 9
The Skeptic
An EU data center exists alongside US and CA, so hosting can be European — but the trail ends there: we found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership, subprocessor locations or a published data processing agreement. The one named third party, VoxPopMe, powers video responses with no location stated, and the SSO guidance itself notes Okta's built-in integration 'supports US based production', leaving EU or CA accounts to manual setup. 9 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
A free tier and named plans appear, with a feature-by-plan mapping showing which branding and email options sit on Collaborator, Professional and Full Access. The captured pages state no prices, response limits or overage terms, and single sign-on requires contacting sales, so a real annual cost cannot be computed from public pages. 10 9
The Operations Manager
A free tier and named plans (Collaborator, Professional, Full Access, Enterprise) appear in a feature comparison — branding removal needs Professional or above, styling and private domains start at Collaborator — but the captured pages give no price for any plan and no response, submission or user limits, and single sign-on is only described as available to business platform customers on contact. I cannot compute a real annual cost from these pages, and whether the price jumps with response count is exactly what stays unknown. 9 10
The HR Lead
Plan names (Collaborator, Professional, Full Access, Enterprise) and a detailed mapping of which branding and white-labelling features belong to which plan are published, and the free tier's limit of showing the Powered By logo is stated. We found no public information on prices per plan or user, response limits and overages, or the cost of single sign-on, which is offered to business platform customers on contact. 10 9
The Academic Researcher
Plan names and feature gating are visible — application themes, private domains, favicon and logo removal mapped across Collaborator, Professional and Full Access, instructor-led training reserved for Enterprise, and a free tier that keeps the vendor logo — but I found no public information on price figures, response limits, billing terms or VAT treatment. Single sign-on is documented only as available to business platform customers, with contact required. I cannot compute an annual cost for my faculty from these pages. 10 9
The Data Protection Officer
A free tier and a feature-to-plan mapping across Collaborator, Professional and Full Access are public — styling, private domains and logo removal sit on higher plans, and single sign-on is reserved for business platform customers by contact. No price figures, response or user limits, VAT treatment or billing terms appear on the pages we read, so a real annual cost cannot be computed. 9 10
The Skeptic
Plan names and feature gating are public — Collaborator, Professional, Full Access, Enterprise, plus a free tier — and the tables are refreshingly specific: the Powered By logo that free accounts must carry comes off on Professional and Full Access. But we found no public information on any price figure, response limit or per-user cost, and single sign-on is 'available to our business platform customers' by contact, so a buyer can map features but not compute a single annual cost. 10 9
Questions about Alchemer
Is Alchemer European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Alchemer is based.
Where does Alchemer store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Alchemer have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Alchemer?
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: Alchemer alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 4 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
- 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 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
- 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
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Form & survey building — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Form & survey building — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →