whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

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

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

Link to this page

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

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has seen a "free form builder" put its logo on every customer survey and charge per response the month the campaign worked. Reads "GDPR compliant" with no data processing agreement behind it, "anonymous" surveys that still log IP addresses, "EU hosting" on the enterprise plan only, and AI analysis features with no word on where the answers go — and asks whether the responses can leave with the customer.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic 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 Skeptic
Form & survey building 4 of 5 4 of 5
Distribution, response collection & workflows 3.5 of 5 3 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 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about 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. 1 Form & survey building — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Form & survey building — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap help.alchemer.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →