Forms & Surveys
Jotform
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Jotform Inc. · www.jotform.com
Compare with Typeform → 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.
Jotform at a glance
- Vendor
- Jotform Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 28 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Jotform 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Jotform Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 28 Oct 2026 to 1 Nov 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
Jotform Inc. of San Francisco sells a form builder, and evidence is strongest at form creation and collection: form building scored 6-7 and collection and workflows 6-7, on a drag-and-drop builder with 20,000+ templates, conditional logic, translations and conversational forms, plus links, embeds, QR codes, offline mobile collection, signatures, 40+ payment gateways and 150+ integrations. Analysis and reporting drew a level 4 — bar graphs, pie charts and submission grids with CSV, Excel and PDF exports, but no public information on cross-tabulation, filters or NPS. Consent and data protection is weakest at 2-3: captured pages show a privacy-policy link, PCI compliance and a GDPR page, with no public information on a data processing agreement, retention or anonymous submissions. Hosting and administration drew the widest range, 4-6, as judges weighed the EU storage option in Germany — data stated to be kept exclusively on EU servers — against undocumented team roles and audit logs. Sovereignty scored 4-5 on German storage and the London contracting entity named in the terms; subprocessors and certifications are undescribed. Pricing transparency scored 3 — free sign-up advertised, no plan prices published.
Speaks for it
- Form building scored 6-7 on a documented drag-and-drop builder with 20,000+ templates, conditional show/hide logic, answer piping, custom CSS and form translations
- Collection and workflows scored 6-7 on share links, embeds, QR codes, offline mobile collection with automatic sync, signatures, file uploads and payments through 40+ gateways, with no additional transaction fees on ACH, eCheck and recurring donations
- 150+ integrations carry responses into tools such as HubSpot, Salesforce and Mailchimp
- An EU storage option in Germany is documented, with data stated to be kept exclusively on EU servers
- Portability is documented end to end: forms export as HTML, submissions as CSV, Excel and PDF, and uploads in a single zip
Held against it
- Consent and data protection scored 2-3, the weakest area, with no public information on a data processing agreement, retention and automatic deletion, or an anonymous mode
- Analysis and reporting scored a level 4, with no public information on filters, cross-tabulation, NPS or exports to SPSS and R
- We found no public information on managed invitation lists with reminders, response quotas and closing rules, or a documented API
- We found no public information on team roles and permissions, an audit log or self-hosting
- We found no public information on subprocessors and their locations, or on ISO 27001 and SOC 2 certifications, while the vendor is Jotform Inc. of San Francisco
Best for
- You need branded, no-code forms that take payments directly through 40+ gateways, with coupons and recurring billing
- You want respondents' data stored in the EU — the vendor offers storage in Germany stating data will be kept exclusively on its EU servers
- Your teams collect responses in the field and offline, with automatic sync once reconnected
- You need submissions flowing straight into tools like HubSpot, Salesforce or Mailchimp among the 150+ integrations
Avoid if
- You need in-tool cross-tabulation, filters, NPS or SPSS and R exports — the documented reporting covers bar graphs, pie charts and submission grids
- You must verify a data processing agreement, retention and automatic deletion, or an anonymous mode before collecting personal data — we found no public information on any of these
- You run panel or survey fieldwork needing managed invitation lists with reminders, unique links and response quotas — we found no public information on this layer
- You need team roles and permissions or an audit log for a departmental rollout — we found no public information on either
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 3.5 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 3 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 1.5 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 2.5 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
The drag-and-drop builder, 20,000+ templates, conditional show/hide logic, answer piping, hidden fields, custom CSS, form translations and my own logo, fonts and colours cover most of what a four-language wave needs. Calculations and scoring, randomisation, reusable question libraries and a named accessibility standard are not described, and I found no public information on quota rules inside logic, which is exactly what keeps my samples clean. 1 2
The Operations Manager
A drag-and-drop builder, 20,000+ templates, the customer's own logo, fonts and colours, and conditional logic that shows or hides fields are all confirmed, so a colleague can build without IT. Answer piping, hidden fields, custom CSS and multi-language translations are also documented. We found no public information on calculations and scoring, randomisation, reusable question libraries, or a named accessibility standard. 1 2
The HR Lead
A drag-and-drop builder with our own logo, fonts and colours, twenty thousand templates, conditional show/hide logic, answer piping, hidden fields, custom CSS, translations and conversational one-question-per-page forms is documented. We found no public information on calculations, reusable question libraries or a named accessibility standard such as WCAG or BITV, which a works council will ask about. 1 2
The Academic Researcher
The drag-and-drop builder is confirmed with conditional show/hide logic, answer piping, hidden fields, pre-population, translations, custom CSS, a one-question-per-page conversational mode, 20,000+ templates and the customer's logo, fonts and colours. We found no public information on randomisation or on calculations and scoring — exactly what I would need for experimental designs — and no accessibility standard is named. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The drag-and-drop builder, 20,000-plus templates, styling with the customer's own logo, fonts and colours, conditional logic to show or hide fields, answer piping, hidden fields, custom CSS and form translation are all documented on the vendor's own pages. This sits above a standard builder but short of the research-grade tier: we found no public information on calculations and scoring, randomisation, reusable question libraries or a named accessibility standard in the captured pages. 1 2
The Skeptic
Drag-and-drop building with 20,000+ templates, conditional show/hide logic, answer piping, hidden fields, custom CSS, translations and conversational one-question-per-page forms is all documented, with the customer's own logo, fonts and colours. We found no public information on calculations or scoring, question randomisation, reusable question libraries, or accessibility output against a named standard. 1 2
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
Share links, embedding, QR codes, email notifications and autoresponders, file uploads, offline collection through the mobile app, approval workflows and 150+ integrations into CRM, email marketing and project tools are all described, with payments through 40+ gateways built in. I found no public information on email invitations to managed contact lists with reminders and unique links, response quotas and closing rules, or a documented API and webhooks — precisely the sample-management layer a research operation runs on. 1 2 4
The Operations Manager
Everything my damage reports and order forms need is confirmed: share links, embedding and QR codes, email and WhatsApp notifications on submission, file uploads of any type or size, offline collection in the mobile app, legally binding signatures, and payments through 40+ gateways. Responses can flow straight into HubSpot or Salesforce among 150+ integrations, and an approval-workflow automation page appears in the captured pages. We found no public information on managed invitation lists with reminders, response quotas and closing rules, or a documented REST API and webhooks. 1 2 3 4
The HR Lead
Links, embedding, QR codes, email notifications per response, file uploads, offline collection with later sync, payments across forty-plus gateways, electronic signatures and over a hundred and fifty integrations are documented, with workflow automation and approval automation pages present. We found no public information on invitation lists with reminders and unique links, response quotas, or a documented API with webhooks. 1 2 4
The Academic Researcher
Embedding without coding, QR codes, share links, email notifications and autoresponders, WhatsApp alerts and conditional emails are confirmed, alongside file upload, signatures, offline collection in the mobile app with automatic sync, and payments through 40+ gateways with no extra transaction fees. We found no public information on managed invitation lists with reminders and unique links, response quotas or a documented API; a captured page on approval workflows yielded no confirmed statements. 1 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
Embedding, QR codes, email and WhatsApp notifications, conditional notifications driven by how the form is filled, file uploads, signatures, payments through the form with 40-plus gateways, offline mobile collection, 150-plus integrations and an approval workflow automation page are all documented. We found no public information on invitations to managed contact lists with reminders, or on documented webhooks and a REST API. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
Distribution is broad: share links, embeds, QR codes, file uploads, signatures, payments through 40+ gateways with coupons and recurring billing, email notifications, autoresponders, WhatsApp alerts, offline mobile collection, and 150+ integrations into CRMs and email tools. We found no public information on invitations with reminders to managed contact lists, response quotas and closing rules, approval routing, webhooks or an API. 1 2
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
The report builder turns submissions into bar graphs, pie charts and submission grids, data exports to CSV, Excel and PDF, and the captured pages include a sentiment-analysis feature page with no detail quoted from it. Cross-tabulation, NPS and other standard scores, filters, weighting and trend reporting across waves are not described, so I would be back in a spreadsheet before every board meeting. 2 5
The Operations Manager
The confirmed capabilities are a report builder producing bar graphs, pie charts and submission grids, built-in form analytics, and exports to CSV, Excel and PDF; pages for sentiment analysis and automated flow reports also appear in the captured set. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, standard scores such as NPS, or exports to SPSS or R. 2 5 6
The HR Lead
Automatic bar charts, pie charts, submission grids, PDF reports, secure sharing and exports to CSV, Excel and PDF are documented, and pages exist for sentiment analysis and flow reports. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, NPS or hiding results below a minimum group size, which is what per-department reporting under a works council agreement needs. 2 5 6
The Academic Researcher
The Report Builder turns submissions into bar graphs, pie charts and submission grids, forms carry built-in analytics, and submissions export to CSV, Excel and PDF with reports shareable online. We found no public information on filters and cross-tabulation, significance testing, or SPSS and R exports with value labels — the exports my statistics workflow depends on; captured pages on sentiment analysis and flow reports yielded no confirmed statements. 2 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The report builder turns submissions into bar graphs, pie charts and submission grids, PDFs can be generated for single or multiple submissions, data exports to CSV and Excel, and captured pages describe sentiment analysis and flow reports. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, or standard scores such as NPS in the captured pages. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
The captures show automatic visual reports with bar graphs, pie charts and submission grids, per-submission PDFs, a built-in analytics tool with Google Analytics as an option, and submission data exported to CSV, Excel and PDF. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation or standard scores such as NPS, and no detail on how open-text or sentiment analysis works. 1 2
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 footer carries privacy, terms and security pages, a GDPR-compliance feature page appears among the captured pages with no detail quoted, and PCI compliance is stated for payments only. I found no public information on anonymous modes that drop IP addresses, retention periods with automatic deletion, a data processing agreement, or consent records kept with each response — all central when collecting consumer data. 1 2 7
The Operations Manager
A privacy policy and a security page are linked from the footer, a GDPR-compliance page appears in the captured set, and payment collection is stated to be PCI compliant. Beyond that we found no public information on anonymous submissions, retention periods and automatic deletion, encryption of responses, or a data processing agreement. 1 2 7
The HR Lead
The captured pages show a linked privacy policy, a security page, PCI compliance for payments and a GDPR compliance page. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, retention periods or automatic deletion, so I cannot verify deletion when the works council agreement requires it. 1 2 7
The Academic Researcher
The only confirmed items touching data protection are a footer link to a privacy policy and security pages, and PCI compliance for payments; we found no public information on consent or privacy-notice fields, an anonymous mode, retention and automatic deletion, a data processing agreement or a data protection officer. A captured GDPR-compliance page yielded no confirmed statements I could score. 1 2 7
The Data Protection Officer
A GDPR compliance page exists, a privacy policy and security page are linked in the site footer, payments are PCI compliant and Google reCAPTCHA protects against bots. Beyond that we found no public information on a data processing agreement, consent or privacy-notice fields, an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, retention periods with automatic deletion, or encryption of responses — I would want every one of these before any department of mine collected personal data here. 1 2 7
The Skeptic
This is a product collecting signatures, payment details and contact data, and the captures show only a privacy policy link, PCI compliance for payments and an opt-in EU storage tier. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, retention periods or deletion, encryption of responses, or consent and privacy-notice fields — while forms can be wired to Google Analytics, Tag Manager and reCAPTCHA with nothing said about cookie controls. 1 2 3
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
European data residency is offered with data kept exclusively on the company's own EU servers in Germany, submissions export to CSV, Excel and PDF with forms as HTML and uploads in a zip, and Enterprise, single sign-on and white-labelling pages exist. Team roles and permissions per workspace, audit logs and a documented import format for moving to another tool are not described. 1 2 3 8 9
The Operations Manager
EU hosting is explicit and strong — "The data will be kept exclusively in our EU servers in Germany" — and everything is portable: forms export as HTML, submissions as CSV, Excel and PDF, and uploaded files in a single zip. Single sign-on and white-labelling each have their own product pages, and an Enterprise offering exists. We found no public information on team roles and permissions, an audit log, or self-hosting. 1 2 3 8 9
The HR Lead
European storage exclusively on servers in Germany is stated, forms export as HTML, submission data as CSV, Excel and PDF, uploads as a zip, and pages exist for single sign-on and white-labelling. We found no public information on team roles and permissions per form, an audit log, or a documented format for moving forms and responses to another tool. 1 2 3 8 9
The Academic Researcher
Residency on European servers in Germany, with data kept exclusively in the EU, is explicitly confirmed, all responses export to CSV, Excel and PDF with uploads in a zip, and an Enterprise edition is offered. We found no public information on team workspaces and roles, single sign-on, an audit log or white-labelling — the captured pages on single sign-on and white-labelling produced no confirmed statements — so I cannot tell what a faculty deployment would actually include. 1 2 3 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
EU hosting is documented in the vendor's own words: European user data can be transferred to and kept exclusively on servers in Germany, which is what I look for first. Captured pages describe single sign-on and white-labelling, and forms, submission data and uploads can be exported in stated formats; we found no public information on team workspaces with distinct roles, an audit log, or self-hosting. 2 3 8 9
The Skeptic
EU storage in Germany is a documented option ("the data will be kept exclusively in our EU servers in Germany"), submission data exports to CSV, Excel and PDF with uploads in a zip, forms export as HTML, and an Enterprise offering exists. We found no public information on team workspaces and roles, single sign-on, an audit log, white-labelling, custom domains or self-hosting. 1 2 3
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 vendor is Jotform Inc. of San Francisco, and the captured pages state European user data can be kept exclusively on the company's EU servers in Germany, with PCI compliance claimed for payments. The subprocessor chain for hosting, email delivery, payments, analytics and any AI features is not listed, and no data processing agreement, ISO 27001 or SOC 2 statement is described, so the chain beyond the database stays unproven. 1 2 3
The Operations Manager
The vendor is Jotform Inc. of San Francisco, though the terms are noted to name Jotform Ltd of London as contracting entity for customers outside the listed regions, and European storage in Germany is offered with data stated to be kept exclusively on EU servers. We found no public information on ownership, the subprocessor chain behind hosting, email delivery and payments, a published data processing agreement, or security certifications. 1 2 3
The HR Lead
The vendor is Jotform Inc. of San Francisco, while European data can be kept exclusively on servers in Germany. We found no public information on ownership, the contracting entity, subprocessors such as hosting, email delivery or analytics, or a published data processing agreement, so the chain beyond the database is unverified. 1 2 3
The Academic Researcher
The corporate entity is Jotform Inc. of San Francisco, the terms name a London entity for customers outside listed regions, and European hosting in Germany is explicitly confirmed. We found no public information on subprocessors and their locations, a published data processing agreement, or ISO 27001 and SOC 2 certifications, so beyond the database in Germany the chain my ethics board would audit stays opaque. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
EU hosting in Germany and a London contracting entity named in the terms give a European leg to stand on, but Jotform Inc. of San Francisco appears as the parent and vendor across the captured pages. We found no public information on subprocessors, a published data processing agreement, or ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certifications, so the chain that would carry respondents' answers cannot be checked from these pages. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Jotform Inc. of 4 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco is the company on every captured page, with EU storage an opt-in German tier the vendor describes as transferring your data to its European servers; the terms name a London entity, Jotform Ltd, for customers outside listed regions. We found no public information on subprocessors and their locations, a data processing agreement, or ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certification — the security posture shown is a PCI badge and a footer link. 1 2 3
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 sign-up is promoted and several payment methods are quoted with no additional transaction fees, but no paid plan prices, submission limits, per-seat costs, plan comparison or billing terms appear. I could not begin to compute a year of fieldwork costs from the public pages alone. 1 2 3
The Operations Manager
A free sign-up is advertised ("Sign Up with an email IT'S FREE!") and an Enterprise tier exists, but we found no public information on plan prices, submission or user limits, overage terms, or which features sit on which plan. An operations buyer cannot compute the annual cost for a given response volume from the captured pages, and whether the price jumps with submission counts is exactly the unanswered question. 1 3
The HR Lead
A free sign-up is documented, but we found no public information on plan prices, user or response limits, what happens above them, or which features need a higher plan. The real annual cost for six hundred employees cannot be computed from these pages. 1 3
The Academic Researcher
A free tier is confirmed with 'Sign Up for Free', but we found no public information on plan prices, user or response limits, overage charges, or which features sit on a higher plan, so the annual cost of a faculty licence cannot be computed from the captured pages. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
A free sign-up is offered, and the payment features state no additional transaction fees for ACH, eCheck and recurring donations. We found no public information on plan prices, submission limits, which features sit behind which plan, or the terms of the enterprise offering — a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from these pages alone. 1 3
The Skeptic
The free tier is real ("Sign Up for Free", "IT'S FREE!") and that is the whole of the pricing story in the captures. We found no public information on paid plan prices, submission or user limits, overage or extra-response charges, which features need which plan, billing periods, VAT or cancellation terms. 1 3
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 Jotform
Is Jotform European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Jotform as Rest of world.
Where does Jotform store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
Does Jotform have a free plan?
Yes. Jotform has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Jotform?
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: Jotform 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 — Legal entity, Hosting location, Hosting options, Data processing agreement. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 49 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
- 8 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
- 4 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
- 3 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
- 4 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 EU data residency page www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap www.jotform.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Pricing page www.jotform.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 GDPR page www.jotform.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Security page www.jotform.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 13 Privacy policy www.jotform.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →