Forms & Surveys

Alchemer

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Alchemer · www.alchemer.com

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Market Researcher v1.0 · The Operations Manager v1.0 · The HR Lead v1.0 · The Academic Researcher v1.0 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 3 Nov 2026

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

HTML

<a href="https://whats-best.ai/software/forms-and-surveys/alchemer"><img src="https://whats-best.ai/badge/forms-and-surveys/alchemer.svg" alt="Alchemer: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai" height="66"></a>

Markdown

[![Alchemer: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai](https://whats-best.ai/badge/forms-and-surveys/alchemer.svg)](https://whats-best.ai/software/forms-and-surveys/alchemer)

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

Alchemer alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Academic Researcher

Weighted verdict

Runs questionnaire studies at a European university and has to satisfy the ethics board before the first respondent sees a question. Wants complex branching, randomisation and validated scales, an informed-consent page that is part of the instrument, exports to SPSS and R with labels intact, and a licence the faculty can host or at least keep in the EU.

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

Scored by The Academic Researcher

Panel median The Academic Researcher This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.

Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion	Panel median	The Academic Researcher
Form & survey building	4 of 5	4 of 5
Distribution, response collection & workflows	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
Survey analysis & reporting	3 of 5	3.5 of 5
Consent, GDPR & respondent data	2 of 5	2 of 5
Hosting choice, teams & portability	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
European sovereignty	2 of 5	2 of 5

Form & survey building

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Distribution, response collection & workflows

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Survey analysis & reporting

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Consent, GDPR & respondent data

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Hosting choice, teams & portability

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

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

Do you know more about Alchemer? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →