Forms & Surveys
LamaPoll
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lamano GmbH & Co. KG · www.lamapoll.de
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.
LamaPoll at a glance
- Vendor
- Lamano GmbH & Co. KG
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Germany source, captured 28 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 28 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates LamaPoll 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. LamaPoll is an online survey tool from Lamano GmbH & Co. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 28 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 29 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
LamaPoll is an online survey tool from Lamano GmbH & Co. KG of Berlin, positioned for employee and general surveys, with weighted totals from 6.3 to 7.0 across the judging personas. It is strongest on sovereignty, the one criterion scored 8 with no lower mark: processing of survey data exclusively in Germany on the vendor's own servers, named German subcontractors (IONOS, Strato, Mailbox.org), and an Article 28 processing agreement concluded automatically at registration. Hosting and administration holds at 7, and consent and data protection at 6-7, supported by a fully anonymous mode without IP addresses, cookies or metadata. The genuine split is collection and workflows, the lowest band at 4-6: judges crediting a managed-list operation with an address book and email editor scored higher, while those finding no public information on reminders, submission notifications, file uploads or webhooks scored lower. Pricing transparency reached 7-8 with all four plans public, from Basic 49 € / Monat or 490 € / Jahr to Enterprise 499 € / Monat or 4990 € / Jahr, though the captured pages give different figures for cancellation.
Speaks for it
- Surveys can run fully anonymous without IP addresses, cookies or metadata, with contact data processed separately from the answers
- An Article 28 processing agreement is concluded automatically at registration and can be previewed and downloaded beforehand
- Survey data is processed exclusively in Germany on the vendor's own servers, with German subcontractors named by company, address and certification
- All four paid plans are published with monthly and annual prices, from Basic at 49 € / Monat or 490 € / Jahr to Enterprise at 499 € / Monat or 4990 € / Jahr, beside a free tier capped at 50 participants and a 14-day trial
- Raw data exports reach SPSS with extensive metadata, plus CSV, TXT and MatLab, and summary exports Excel, Word, PowerPoint and HTML
Held against it
- We found no public information on reminders, submission notifications, file uploads, payments or signatures inside the form, or webhooks
- The vendor itself states that there are no interfaces to third-party providers for the collected data
- We found no public information on calculations, scoring or randomisation in the editor, or on significance testing, weighting and open-text analysis in evaluation
- We found no public information on per-response prices once a plan's participant limit is reached
- The captured pages give different figures for cancellation — no notice periods on the pricing page, a 24-hour notice with automatic renewal in the terms
Best for
- You run employee surveys in Germany and need a fully anonymous mode without IP addresses, cookies or metadata, consent built into the questionnaire, and an Article 28 agreement that is concluded automatically at registration
- You require processing of survey data exclusively in Germany on the vendor's own servers, with the vendor stating it uses no US cloud services for that processing
- Your statistics workflow depends on raw-data export to SPSS with extensive metadata
- You want to compare fully published prices across four tiers before committing, starting from the free tier's cap of 50 participants
Avoid if
- Your team needs collected responses routed automatically into a CRM or other third-party system — the vendor itself states there are no interfaces to third-party providers
- Your legal department insists on its own processing agreement — individual agreements are offered only in exceptional cases, generally at a minimum of 6000 €
- Your payment chain must remain entirely inside the EU — payments run through Stripe Payments Europe in Ireland, with transfers to the USA possible under the Data Privacy Framework
- Your response rates depend on automated collection workflows such as reminders and submission notifications — collection and workflows scored 4-6, the lowest band of any criterion
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 3.5 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 2 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 3 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 3.5 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 4 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3.5 of 5 |
Form & survey building
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be built without code: question and field types, conditional logic and branching, piping and hidden fields, calculations, multi-page forms and progress, templates, design and branding, multiple languages, and accessible output for respondents.
0 — Not a form or survey builder; questions cannot be authored in the product.
3 — A builder with the common question types and a few templates; logic, branding or languages are basic or not described.
5 — A drag-and-drop builder with a wide range of question types, conditional logic that shows, hides or skips questions, multi-page forms, a template library, and the customer's logo, colours and fonts.
8 — Advanced logic with piping, hidden fields, calculations and scoring, randomisation, surveys translated into several languages from one master, reusable question libraries, custom CSS or themes, and accessible forms with a named standard (WCAG 2.1 AA or BITV) stated.
10 — Best-in-class authoring: complex research designs (loops, quotas in logic, conjoint or MaxDiff), versioned forms with change history, a published accessibility conformance report, and every element of a form available through the API.
The Market Researcher
The editor pages show jumps and branching, separate question paths per participant group, required questions, participant attributes with piping and placeholders, multilingual questionnaires via a translation tool, templates, corporate-design colours, typography and logos, custom CSS, and accessibility oriented to WCAG/BITV — enough to build my four-language questionnaire without code. I found no public information on calculations or scoring, randomisation, reusable question libraries, or quotas inside the logic, which keeps this just below the top band. 2 3 10 11
The Operations Manager
A colleague can build questionnaires without programming: jumps and question paths, required questions, piping and placeholders, a translation tool for multilingual surveys, templates, and corporate colours, logos and typography with CSS options for anything beyond. Surveys are described as accessible oriented to WCAG/BITV. We found no public information on calculations, scoring or randomisation, which keeps this short of the top band. 2 9 10 11
The HR Lead
The questionnaire editor covers what my works council reads line by line: jumps and different question paths, conditional visibility of elements, piping and placeholders, media inside questions and answers, multilingual questionnaires via a translation tool, our own colours, typography and logos plus CSS options, templates for employee surveys, and accessibility oriented to WCAG/BITV. I found no public information on hidden fields, calculations or scoring, randomisation, or reusable question libraries. 2 10 11
The Academic Researcher
Jumps and question paths with conditional visibility, mandatory questions, piping and placeholders fed from an address book, multilingual questionnaires via a translation tool, custom CSS, templates and WCAG/BITV-oriented accessible surveys are all documented. For research use I depend on randomisation, hidden fields and scoring for validated scales, and we found no public information on these, nor on the range of question types offered. 2 3 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
The no-code editor covers jumps and branching, different question paths, conditional visibility, piping and placeholders, multilingual questionnaires with a translation tool, media inside questions, own CI colours, typography and logos, further CSS adjustments, templates, and accessibility oriented to WCAG/BITV, which names a standard. We found no public information on hidden fields, calculations, scoring or randomisation, which is what keeps this just short of the advanced-logic level. 2 7 10 11
The Skeptic
Branching, conditional visibility, question paths, piping, placeholders and participant attributes from an address book are documented, alongside multilingual questionnaires with a translation tool, custom colours, logos, typography and CSS options, templates, and surveys described as barrier-free and "orientiert an WCAG/BITV". We found no public information on calculations, scoring, randomisation or reusable question libraries, and the accessibility claim states orientation to the named standards rather than conformance to them — an advanced builder with roughly half of the top tier's items documented. 2 3 10 11
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
Invitations go out through an email editor to an address book, with QR codes, intranet, social media, print and point-of-sale channels, iFrame embedding, a PDF invitation letter template and documented API access — a real managed-list operation, not just a share link. I found no public information on reminders to non-responders, unique links, submission notifications, response quotas or closing rules, and reminders are the backbone of my survey waves, so this sits modestly above the middle band. 1 2 10 11 13
The Operations Manager
Distribution is broad — email invitations with an editor and address book, QR codes, intranet, social media, print and point of sale, embedding on our own homepage via iFrame, and API access listed even in the entry paid plan. For my workflows the gaps hurt: we found no public information on file uploads, payment fields inside the form, submission notifications, reminders or routing to approval, and the vendor itself states there are no interfaces to third-party providers for the collected data, so a documented handoff into a CRM or spreadsheet is not shown. 1 2 3 6 10 11
The HR Lead
Inviting six hundred staff is covered: an address book with an email editor, invitations by email or intranet, QR codes, iFrame embedding, and channels from social media to print and point of sale, with API documentation also mentioned. For response rates and onward processing I found no public information on reminders, notifications on submission, response quotas or closing rules, approvals, or webhooks, so the workflow side stays undocumented. 1 2 11 13
The Academic Researcher
Invitations by email or intranet with an address book, an email editor and printable invitation letters, plus QR codes, social media, print and point-of-sale channels, iFrame embedding on my own pages and API documentation cover how a study reaches its respondents. We found no public information on reminder scheduling, submission notifications, webhooks, response quotas or file uploads inside the questionnaire. 1 2 9 11 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Respondents are reached by email, QR code, intranet, social media, print and point of sale, invitations go out through an email editor and an address book with a PDF invitation letter template, surveys embed via iFrame, and an API is documented. We found no public information on invitations with reminders, file uploads, notifications on submission, payments collected inside a form, or webhooks, so collection here stops short of running itself. 1 2 9 11 13
The Skeptic
Documented distribution covers email, QR code, intranet, social media, print and point of sale, with an address book, an email editor, iFrame embedding of the questionnaire, a downloadable invitation letter as a PDF template, and API documentation. We found no public information on reminders, unique links per contact, submission notifications, file uploads, payments or signatures inside the form, connector services or webhooks — broad on channels, quiet on what happens to an answer once it arrives. 1 2 11 12 13
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
Results evaluate automatically with charts and tables per question (up to ten per question), filter by completion status, participant attributes and answer behaviour, cross-tabulate, compare subgroups, export raw data per participant to SPSS, CSV, TXT and MatLab and summaries to Excel, Word, PowerPoint and HTML, with NPS, CSAT and Customer Effort Score named on the homepage. I found no public information on significance testing, weighting, trend reports across waves, or open-text coding — so my board-meeting theme grouping of verbatims would have to happen outside the tool. 1 13 14
The Operations Manager
Results are evaluated automatically with charts and tables per question in real time, up to ten diagram types per question, filters by answer behaviour, completion status and participant attributes, group comparison, cross-tabulation, dropout analysis, NPS, CSAT and Customer Effort Score, and exports to Excel, Word, PowerPoint, HTML, CSV, SPSS and MatLab. We found no public information on significance testing, weighting or open-text and sentiment analysis. 1 13 14
The HR Lead
Results come automatically as charts and tables per question, up to ten chart types per question, filterable by completion status, participant attributes and answer behaviour, with group comparison and splitting, cross-tabulation, dropout analysis, NPS, CSAT and Customer Effort Score, and exports to Excel, Word, PowerPoint, HTML, CSV, SPSS and MatLab. For department reporting to managers I found no public information on suppressing results below a minimum group size, and significance testing, weighting, open-text or sentiment analysis and trend reports across survey waves are also not described. 1 2 13 14
The Academic Researcher
Real-time charts per question (up to ten per question), filters by answer behaviour, completion status and participant attributes, cross-tabulation and group comparison, NPS and CSAT metrics, raw-data exports to SPSS with extensive metadata plus CSV, Excel, TXT and MatLab, and summary reports in Word, PowerPoint and HTML — the SPSS export with metadata is exactly what my statistics workflow needs. We found no public information on significance testing, weighting, open-text coding or trend reports across waves. 1 2 13 14
The Data Protection Officer
Results are evaluated automatically with charts and tables per question — up to ten chart types per question — filterable by completion status, participant attributes and answer behaviour, with cross-tabulation, group comparison, dropout analysis, NPS, CSAT and Customer Effort Score, raw data as CSV, SPSS, TXT and MatLab and summaries as Excel, Word, PowerPoint or HTML. We found no public information on significance testing, weighting, open-text or sentiment analysis, or dashboards with their own permissions, so the analysis is solidly mid-level rather than research-grade. 1 13 14 2
The Skeptic
Charts and tables are produced automatically per question with up to ten chart types, results can be filtered by completion status, participant attributes and answer behaviour, with cross-tabulation, dropout analysis, group comparison and NPS, CSAT and Customer Effort Score, and exports reach Excel, Word, PowerPoint, HTML, CSV, SPSS, TXT and MatLab. We found no public information on significance testing, weighting, open-text or sentiment analysis, trend reports across survey waves, or audience-specific dashboards with permissions. 1 2 3 13 14
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
Consent can be modelled directly in the questionnaire (yes/no question with branching on refusal or a mandatory checkbox), surveys can run fully anonymous without IP addresses, cookies or metadata, contact data can be processed separately from the answers, the data processing agreement closes automatically at registration and can be downloaded, a data protection officer is appointed, and encryption in transit and at rest plus TOM documents are stated. I found no public information on retention periods or automatic deletion for survey responses themselves, or on per-respondent access and erasure tooling. 1 4 6 15 16
The Operations Manager
A processing agreement is concluded automatically at registration and can be downloaded in advance, TOM documents are provided, a data protection officer is named, and surveys can run fully anonymous without IP addresses, cookies or metadata; consent can be built directly into the questionnaire and contact data processed separately from other answers. Encryption in transit and at rest, encrypted databases, daily encrypted backups, deletion by the customer at any time and support for impact assessments are all stated. We found no public information on automatic retention periods and deletion for the survey responses themselves. 1 4 6 15 16
The HR Lead
This is strong for a works council: a fully anonymous option without IP addresses, cookies or metadata is stated, anonymous and non-anonymous modes exist with no conversion after the start, contact data can be processed separately from the other answers, consent is built directly into the questionnaire with branching when consent is missing, and the privacy notice can be linked in the footer. The Article 28 processing agreement is concluded automatically on registration and can be downloaded in advance, encryption covers transport, storage, databases and backups, customers can view, adjust and completely delete everything at any time, TOM documents are provided and a data protection officer is appointed. Automatic retention schedules for answers and per-respondent access and erasure tooling are not described, and an individual processing agreement is offered only in exceptional cases at a minimum of 6000 €. 1 4 5 6 15 16
The Academic Researcher
This nearly matches my ethics board's checklist: a consent question built directly into the instrument with branching when consent is withheld, privacy notices linkable in the survey footer, a fully anonymous mode without IP addresses, cookies or metadata, separate processing of contact data, a processing agreement concluded automatically at registration with a downloadable preview, encryption in transit and at rest, support for impact assessments and an appointed data protection officer. We found no public information on automatic retention deletion for survey responses or on tooling for access and erasure requests per respondent. 1 4 5 6 15 16
The Data Protection Officer
This is what I look for first: the processing agreement comes into force automatically at registration and can be previewed and downloaded beforehand, surveys can run fully anonymous without IP addresses, cookies or metadata, consent is modelled directly in the questionnaire with a mandatory checkbox and branching, the privacy notice links from the footer, contact data can be processed separately from the answers, encryption covers transport and rest, and a data protection officer is appointed with TOM and DPIA support available. We found no public information on retention periods that delete survey responses automatically or on tools for access and erasure requests per respondent, and an individually negotiated agreement is offered only in exceptional cases from 6000 € — a real obstacle when a department's lawyers want their own terms. 1 2 4 15 16
The Skeptic
They do the part most vendors only gesture at: a fully anonymous option "ohne IP-Adressen, Cookies, Metadaten", an Article 28 processing agreement that comes into force automatically at registration and can be downloaded beforehand, consent and privacy notices placeable in the questionnaire, contact data processed separately from answers, encryption in transit and at rest, customer deletion at any time, and a company data protection officer. We found no public information on tools for access and erasure per respondent or automatic deletion of stored responses, and the technical and organisational measures are supplied on request rather than published. 1 4 6 15 16
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
Everything runs on the vendor's own servers in Germany only; teams get an admin plus additional users with rights assignable to specific surveys or areas, rights management, workspaces and white-labelling on higher plans, corporate SSO with Azure AD/Entra ID and ADFS on Enterprise, a selectable subdomain in some tariffs, and responses export in documented formats with API access. I found no public information on an audit log, a self-hosted edition, or export of the questionnaire definitions themselves, which is what a documented migration path would need. 3 4 8 10 16
The Operations Manager
Everything runs on the vendor's own servers in Germany, plans state their user counts, and the Enterprise tier adds Corporate SSO with Azure AD/Entra ID and ADFS plus password and session policies; the upper tiers include rights management, workspaces, teams and white labelling, and a custom subdomain is available in some tariffs. Responses export to Excel, SPSS and more with a documented API, and the terms commit to at least 98% availability. We found no public information on an audit log. 3 4 8 10
The HR Lead
Everything runs on the vendor's own German servers, teams get rights management with workspaces, teams and tags, access can be controlled per survey or area, Corporate SSO with Azure AD/Entra ID and ADFS plus two-factor authentication sit on the Enterprise plan, white labelling and a selectable subdomain exist, answers export to Excel and SPSS with API documentation available, and a 98 percent availability commitment plus ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 certification are stated. An audit log, self-hosting and user provisioning are not described on the captured pages. 2 3 5 8 10
The Academic Researcher
The captured pages document Germany-only processing on the vendor's own servers, team collaboration with rights assignable to individual surveys, corporate single sign-on via Azure AD/Entra ID and ADFS on the Enterprise plan, white-labelling, a selectable subdomain, encrypted daily backups, and response exports in documented formats together with an API. We found no public information on an audit log or on exporting the questionnaire definitions themselves, and the terms commit only to 98 percent availability. 3 4 5 8 10
The Data Protection Officer
All data stays in Germany on the vendor's own servers with a stated refusal of US cloud services, user rights reach down to individual surveys and areas, rights management, workspaces and white-labelling come with the higher plans, single sign-on via Azure AD/Entra ID or ADFS sits on the Enterprise plan alongside two-factor authentication, and responses export to Excel and SPSS with an API documented. We found no public information on an audit log or a self-hosted edition, so accountability inside a team rests on roles alone. 3 4 5 10 16
The Skeptic
Hosting is Germany-only on the vendor's own servers on every plan rather than a paid region upgrade, with rights assignable per survey or area, team workspaces, white-labelling from the Platin plan, Enterprise single sign-on via Azure AD/Entra ID and ADFS, TOTP two-factor authentication, a selectable subdomain in some tariffs, and response exports to SPSS, Excel, CSV and more alongside API documentation. We found no public information on an audit log or user provisioning, and the custom address option is a subdomain rather than a full domain. 3 4 8 10 13 14
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where forms and responses are hosted, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, email delivery, payment providers, analytics, AI features). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; responses often carry personal and sometimes special-category data, so the whole chain counts, not only the database.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.
5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (email, analytics, AI features, support) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.
The Market Researcher
The contracting entity is Lamano GmbH & Co. KG of Berlin with register number and VAT ID published, survey data is processed exclusively in Germany on their own servers with no US cloud services, and the chain is named with locations: IONOS for the backup database, Strato and Mailbox.org for email delivery, Stripe Payments Europe in Ireland for payments with EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses stated for any transfers. A DPA is downloadable, TÜV DIN ISO 27001 covers both operations and the datacentres with ISO 27017, 27018 and TISAX AL2 also named; I found no public information on the ownership above the German general partner, so it stops short of sovereign end to end. 4 5 6 7
The Operations Manager
The contracting entity is Lamano GmbH & Co. KG in Berlin with a German general partner, hosting is exclusively on the vendor's own servers in Germany, and named subprocessors with locations and certifications are published — IONOS for backups, Strato and Mailbox.org for email delivery. A data processing agreement is published, ISO 27001, 27017, 27018 and TISAX AL2 are stated, and US cloud services are excluded for survey data; the captured pages give a different picture for the payment chain, where the privacy policy names Stripe Payments Europe Limited in Ireland with possible transfers to the United States under the Data Privacy Framework while another page states all subcontractors sit in Germany. 1 4 5 6 7 15
The HR Lead
The contracting entity is Lamano GmbH & Co. KG in Berlin with a commercial register number, survey data is processed exclusively in Germany on the vendor's own servers, subcontractors are German only and named with addresses and certifications — IONOS for database backups, Mailbox.org and Strato for email delivery — and no US cloud services are used for processing survey data. The processing agreement is downloadable and automatic, and operations and data centres carry TÜV certification to ISO 27001 alongside 27017, 27018 and TISAX AL2; payments run through Stripe in Ireland with possible transfers outside the EU under stated safeguards, and ownership is not evidenced on the captured pages. 1 4 5 6 7 15
The Academic Researcher
A German contracting entity seated in Berlin with published register and VAT details, processing exclusively on servers in Germany, and German subcontractors named with addresses and certifications — IONOS for backups, Strato and Mailbox.org for email delivery — alongside a published processing agreement and ISO 27001, 27017, 27018 and TISAX AL2 certifications make this a genuinely European chain. The one non-German link is the payment provider Stripe Payments Europe in Ireland, which may transfer personal data to the USA under the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses. 4 5 6 7 15 16
The Data Protection Officer
The chain is documented end to end: a German contracting entity seated in Berlin, hosting exclusively on German servers, and named subcontractors — IONOS in Montabaur for backups, Mailbox.org and Strato in Berlin for email dispatch — each with ISO 27001 or BSI C5 stated, plus Stripe Payments Europe in Ireland for payments with the transfer safeguards named, a published processing agreement, and ISO 27001, 27017, 27018 and TISAX AL2 for the operation itself. The only hole I found is the tax accountant used for bookkeeping, who appears without a name. 4 5 6 7 15
The Skeptic
A German entity registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, processing exclusively in Germany on own servers with an explicit claim of no US cloud services including no AWS Frankfurt, and subcontractors named with addresses and certifications — IONOS for backups, Mailbox.org and Strato for mail, all in Germany — plus ISO 27001/27017/27018, TISAX AL2, BSI webchecks and an automatically concluded, downloadable data processing agreement. The open ends are payments through Stripe Payments Europe in Ireland with possible US transfers under the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses, an unnamed tax accountant for bookkeeping, and ownership visible only as the German general partner Lamas GmbH. 1 4 5 6 7 15
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per plan and per user, response or submission limits and what happens above them, which features (logic, branding removal, SSO, EU hosting, analysis modules) need a higher plan, add-ons, minimum term and the free tier's limits.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with users, responses or features is unclear.
5 — Plans are public with prices and their main limits (users, responses, forms), but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, EU hosting, extra responses, branding removal) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every plan priced publicly with its limits, overage or extra-response prices, feature differences per plan in a comparison table, billing period, VAT treatment and cancellation terms stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of users, responses and features, with every add-on, enterprise option, support level and data-return term published.
The Market Researcher
All plans are public with monthly and annual prices as stated (Basic 49 € / Monat or 490 € / Jahr, Gold 99 € / Monat or 990 € / Jahr, Platin 199 € / Monat or 1990 € / Jahr, Enterprise 499 € / Monat or 4990 € / Jahr), participant and user limits per plan, feature lists showing where piping, result splitting, white labelling and corporate SSO sit, a 17 % annual discount, VAT stated as excluded, cancellation terms, a 14-day trial, the free tier's 50-participant limit, and even a published minimum of 6000 € for an individual data processing agreement. I found no public information on what a wave costs above a plan's participant limit, which is the one figure I cannot compute from the public pages. 3 6 8 9
The Operations Manager
Four plans are public with monthly and annual prices, participant limits per survey (500 up to 100,000), user counts and feature lists, a 17% annual saving, prices exclusive of VAT, cancellation terms, a 14-day full-feature trial and a free tier capped at 50 participants; even the custom processing agreement fee of at least 6,000 € in exceptional cases is published. What I could not compute is the cost of exceeding a plan's participant limit, since no overage or extra-response price appears on the captured pages — and for my volumes a jump from 5,000 to 10,001 participants means a tier change from 199 € to 499 € per month. 3 6 8
The HR Lead
All four plans are public with monthly and annual prices — Basic at 49 € per month or 490 € per year up to Enterprise at 499 € per month or 4990 € per year — with participant limits per survey of 500, 5,000, 10,000 and 100,000, users per plan, feature lists per tier, a free tier capped at 50 participants with only the first 50 results evaluable, a 14-day trial, 17 percent saving on annual tariffs, and prices plus VAT. The captured pages give different figures for cancellation — the pricing page states no notice periods while the terms state a 24-hour notice with auto-renewal — and overage or extra-response prices and itemised add-ons are not described. 3 8
The Academic Researcher
All four plans are publicly priced (Basic 49 €/month or 490 €/year, Gold 99 €/month or 990 €/year, Platin 199 €/month or 1990 €/year, Enterprise 499 €/month or 4990 €/year) with participant limits per survey, user counts, per-plan features, VAT stated as added, a 17 percent saving on annual tariffs, a 14-day full-feature trial and the free tier's limit of 50 evaluable results. We found no public information on prices for responses beyond the plan limits, and the captured pages give different figures for the education offer (permanent free use for pupils, students and schools versus a three-month free student tier) and for cancellation (no notice periods on the pricing page, 24-hour notice with automatic renewal in the terms). 1 3 6 8 13
The Data Protection Officer
Prices are public per plan — Basic 49 € / Monat or 490 € / Jahr, Gold 99 € / 990 €, Platin 199 € / 1990 €, Enterprise 499 € / 4990 € — each with participant limits per survey, user counts on the higher tiers, feature lists per plan, VAT stated as "Alle Preise zzgl. MwSt.", monthly cancellation, a 17 % annual discount, a free tier limited to 50 participants and a free tier for pupils, students and schools. We found no public information on overage or extra-response prices once a plan's participant limit is reached, which is the one figure a buyer cannot compute in advance. 3 8 9
The Skeptic
Every paid plan is published with monthly and annual figures — Basic at "49 € / Monat" or "490 € / Jahr" up to Enterprise at "499 € / Monat" or "4990 € / Jahr" — with participant caps per survey, admin and user counts, feature lists per tier, VAT stated as "Alle Preise zzgl. MwSt.", a stated 17% saving in annual tariffs, a free tier limited to 50 participants, a 14-day trial, and even the exceptional-case custom processing agreement priced at "mindestens 6000 €". A buyer still cannot compute everything: we found no public information on per-response overage prices or the cost of users beyond the Enterprise bundle of one admin plus twenty users, which runs through an individual offer, and annual add-on contracts renew for a further year unless cancelled 24 hours before expiry. 3 8 9 15
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 | — | 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about LamaPoll
Is LamaPoll European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies LamaPoll as EU-Made.
Where does LamaPoll store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Germany as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 28 Oct 2026.
Does LamaPoll have a free plan?
Yes. LamaPoll has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to LamaPoll?
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: LamaPoll alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 28 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data processing agreement, Transfer impact assessment, Hosting location, Legal entity. 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.
- 15 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
- 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
- 6 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 hosting 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
- 1 subprocessors 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
- 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 (16)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing page www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Data protection and security page www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Security page www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy policy www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Legal notice www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Terms of service www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Form & survey building — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Form & survey building — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap www.lamapoll.de Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →