Forms & Surveys
Netigate
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Netigate AB · www.netigate.net
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.
Netigate at a glance
- Vendor
- Netigate AB
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Starting price
- “Netigate starts from €7,000 per year, billed annually, for organisations running continuous multi-touchpoint feedback programmes. Pricing is...” (vendor’s words) source, captured 28 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Netigate 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Netigate is a survey and feedback platform from Netigate AB in Stockholm, with Netigate Deutschland GmbH in Frankfurt as the German contracting entity. 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
Netigate is a survey and feedback platform from Netigate AB in Stockholm, with Netigate Deutschland GmbH in Frankfurt as the German contracting entity. The bench's scores are tight and highest on compliance: consent and data protection stands at 8 on both minimum and maximum, resting on a mandatory terms-and-consent page whose revocation deletes answers, anonymous surveys with no cookies for respondents, IP addresses held seven days at web-server level, a published data processing agreement listing sub-processors, and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 audited annually. Sovereignty scores 7-8 on EU-only data centres and a Germany-hosted option for qualifying customers, while the trust pages note sub-processors' ultimate parents may sit outside the EU. Analysis and reporting sits at 7; form building, collection and workflows, and hosting and administration run 6-7. The clear weak point is pricing transparency at 3-4: beyond "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually", plan prices, the single sign-on add-on's price and the free account's limits sit behind a thirty-minute demo. No criterion spread more than a point, and the judges' disagreements registered as none of consequence.
Speaks for it
- Consent and data protection scored 8 at minimum and maximum, anchored by a terms-and-consent page whose revocation deletes the respondent's answers.
- Anonymous surveys store no respondent identifiers and set no cookies, with IP addresses kept seven days at web-server level and not cross-referenced.
- A published data processing agreement lists sub-processors, alongside published technical and organisational measures and a named data protection officer.
- E-mail and SMS sendouts with automatic reminders, general links, QR, in-app and login distribution all record into one report.
- Users, responses and projects are unlimited on every plan.
Held against it
- Pricing transparency scores 3-4, with "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually" the only public figure.
- Single sign-on is a paid add-on not included in all plans, with no published price.
- SPSS and pivot table exports sit on select plans that the pages do not name.
- The vendor states Netigate branding on the survey closing screen cannot be removed.
- We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, piping, randomisation or quotas.
Best for
- You run customer or employee experience programmes in the EU and need documented consent, retention and sub-processor disclosures for a data protection officer or works council.
- You need multi-channel distribution with automatic reminders feeding a single combined report.
- You want SAML 2.0 single sign-on with SCIM 2.0 directory provisioning and are prepared to price the add-on with the vendor.
- You can budget from a published annual starting price and negotiate plan details directly.
Avoid if
- You must compute your full annual cost from public pages before talking to the vendor.
- You need fully white-labelled surveys, as the vendor states the closing screen's Netigate branding cannot be removed.
- You require Germany-only hosting for every deployment — the option is reserved for "qualifying customers".
- You must know in advance which plan carries the SPSS export format before you sign.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 3.5 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 3.5 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 3.5 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 4 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 4 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 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 logic builder is genuinely advanced: multi-page branching with combinable AND/OR conditions, jump rules with a survey tree to spot conflicts, and a mandatory terms-and-consent page type, plus a named accessibility standard (WCAG 2.1), a reusable questionnaire library and branded design templates with logo, fonts and hex-coded colours. We found no public information on piping, hidden fields, calculations, scoring, randomisation or quotas in logic, the last of which is what keeps my samples clean. 2 4 8 9
The Operations Manager
A colleague could build here without IT: drag-and-drop authoring with a wide question-type range, a questionnaire library, ready-made and company design templates with logo, hex-coded colours and a font list. The logic documentation is genuinely deep — multi-page branching, combinable AND/OR conditions, show/hide and jump rules with a survey tree — and accessibility to WCAG 2.1 is stated outright. We found no public information on piping, hidden fields, calculations or randomisation, which holds it below the top tier. 2 8 9 4 3
The HR Lead
The help pages document genuine branching logic — AND/OR conditions across questions, jump rules, multi-page surveys with a survey tree to spot conflicts — plus reusable design templates with logo, nine named fonts and brand colours by hex code, a questionnaire library and WCAG 2.1 compliance stated with 2.2 planned for 2026. We found no public information on piping, hidden fields, calculations, scoring or randomisation, which keeps this below the top level. 8 9 2 4 3
The Academic Researcher
Drag-and-drop authoring with a questionnaire library, ready-made and company-wide design templates covering logo, fonts and brand colours, plus deep conditional logic across multi-page surveys — AND/OR conditions, jump and hide rules, and a survey tree to trace conflicts — covers the branching my studies need, and WCAG 2.1 compliance is stated, which my accessibility review requires. We found no public information on randomisation of question or answer order, piping of earlier answers into later questions, or scoring calculations, so experimental designs would need verification before I committed an instrument to it. 2 4 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
The captured support pages show a drag-and-drop builder with a wide range of question types, a reusable questionnaire library and ready-made templates, plus advanced logic with AND/OR conditions across questions, jump and hide rules, and multi-page branching; design templates carry the customer's logo, fonts and brand colours with device preview. Accessibility is stated by name — WCAG 2.1, with 2.2 planned during 2026 — and surveys run across regions and languages. I found no public information on calculations, scoring, randomisation or custom CSS. 2 8 9 4 3
The Skeptic
Drag-and-drop authoring with real logic: multi-page branching, AND/OR conditions across questions, jump rules with a survey tree to debug them, plus reusable question and design libraries, nine named fonts, logo and brand colours by hex code, multi-language surveys, and WCAG 2.1 named as the accessibility standard. We found no public information on piping, hidden fields, calculations, scoring or randomisation, so this reads as a strong general-purpose builder rather than documented research authoring. 2 3 4 8 9
Distribution, response collection & workflows
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How forms reach people and what happens to an answer: share links, embedding, QR codes, email invitations with reminders, contact lists and panels, offline or kiosk collection, file uploads, payments and signatures inside the form, notifications, approval or assignment of submissions, and automations that pass a response on to other tools.
0 — No way to collect responses from other people; the product only analyses data collected elsewhere.
3 — A share link and an embed code, with responses visible in the product; invitations, notifications and onward workflows are basic or not described.
5 — Links, embedding and QR codes, email notifications on submission, file uploads, a few native integrations (spreadsheets, CRM, chat) plus a connector service such as Zapier or Make, and either email invitations with reminders or payments inside the form.
8 — Invitations to managed contact lists with reminders and unique links, response quotas and closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, submissions routed for approval or assignment, conditional notifications, documented webhooks and a REST API to read and write responses.
10 — Collection at research and process scale: panel or sample sourcing, multi-channel distribution (email, SMS, web, app intercept) with deduplication, workflows with branching and audit trail, and every response event exposed to the customer's systems in real time with a stated delivery guarantee.
The Market Researcher
Email and SMS sendouts to named respondent lists with automatic reminders, general links, QR, in-app and login-based distribution all recorded in one report, plus a logic-driven notification system that can include background data and a REST API referenced for answer import and retention. We found no public information on response quotas and closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, approval routing or webhooks. 1 3 10 11 14
The Operations Manager
Distribution is well covered for my kind of work: e-mail and SMS sendouts with automatic reminders, general links, QR, logins, an embedded single question, and conditional notification e-mails that can carry background data to the right inbox, plus a bi-directional CRM/HRM interface. We found no public information on file uploads (my damage reports need photos), payments inside the form, quotas, approvals or webhooks, and the REST API is only referenced for administration settings. 10 11 2 1 14
The HR Lead
Surveys go out by e-mail and SMS sendout with automatic reminders, general link, QR, an embedded single question and login-based access, with all channels recorded in one report; notifications can be conditioned on survey logic and carry background data, and there is a bi-directional interface to CRM and HRM plus API work with Salesforce. We found no public information on approval routing of submissions, response quotas, closing rules, offline collection or webhooks. 10 11 1 2 14
The Academic Researcher
E-mail and SMS send-outs to respondent lists with automatic reminders, general links, QR, in-app and login-based distribution — all recorded into one report — give me the invitation-and-reminder workflow a panel study requires, and notifications can be triggered through the logic system with custom text and background data. Automated alerts, action workflows and API integrations with CRM systems extend the collection story. We found no public information on offline or kiosk collection, response quotas and closing rules, or webhooks. 1 3 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
E-mail and SMS sendouts go to defined respondent lists with automatic reminders, alongside general links, per-respondent logins, embedded single questions, QR and in-app channels, with results combined into one report. Conditional notification e-mails run through the logic notification system and can carry background data and custom text, and a REST API plus CRM/HRIS integrations are described. I found no public information on file uploads, payments, response quotas or webhooks. 10 11 1 2 14
The Skeptic
Distribution is genuinely multi-channel: e-mail and SMS sendouts to named lists with automatic reminders, general links for web and social, QR, in-app, logins issued with username, password and survey ID, and even an embedded single question — all recorded in one report — plus conditional notification e-mails carrying background data and a REST API referenced in the product documentation. We found no public information on file uploads, payments inside the form, response quotas or closing rules, or documented webhooks. 1 2 10 11
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
Built-in NPS, eNPS, CSAT and CES with real-time dashboards, AI theme identification, sentence-level sentiment with manual correction and sarcasm detection, driver analysis behind NPS and CSAT, and exports to PowerPoint, Excel, PDF, RAW and SPSS on select plans across twenty-plus analysis languages. We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting or trend reports across waves, so I would still be exporting before the board meeting. 1 2 3 12 13
The Operations Manager
Reports export to PowerPoint, Excel, PDF and raw format for all users, with SPSS and pivot formats on select plans, and the open-text side is strong: sentence-level sentiment scoring with manual correction, theme identification and driver analysis behind NPS and CSAT, on real-time dashboards. We found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting or R exports, so it sits below the research-grade tier. 12 13 3 2 1
The HR Lead
Answers land in real-time dashboards with NPS, eNPS and CSAT built in, AI theme and driver analysis over open text, sentence-level sentiment with manual correction and sarcasm detection, and report exports to PowerPoint, Excel, PDF and RAW, with SPSS and pivot formats on select plans. Cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting and dashboards split by audience with permissions are not described on the captured pages. 12 13 3 2 1
The Academic Researcher
Real-time dashboards carry NPS, eNPS, CSAT and CES, and the open-text tooling is genuinely research-friendly: sentence-level sentiment with manual correction and sarcasm detection, theme identification, driver analysis, and tracking over time. SPSS and pivot table exports exist — decisive for my statistics workflow — though on select plans only, and we found no public information on whether value labels survive the export. We also found no public information on cross-tabulation with significance testing or weighting, which a publication-grade analysis usually demands. 2 3 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Real-time dashboards cover built-in NPS, eNPS and CSAT, and the AI layer identifies themes and the drivers behind those scores; sentiment runs at sentence level with sarcasm detection, a score range and manual correction in the interface, tracked over time and per topic. Every user can export PowerPoint, Excel, PDF and RAW, with SPSS and pivot table formats on select plans. I found no public information on significance testing, weighting or cross-wave trend reports. 2 3 12 13 1
The Skeptic
The answers get real treatment: sentence-level sentiment with sarcasm detection and manual correction, theme identification and driver analysis behind NPS and CSAT, real-time cross-source dashboards with benchmarks mentioned on the homepage, and exports to PowerPoint, Excel, PDF and RAW for all users, with SPSS and pivot formats on "select plans" — which plans, the pages do not say. We found no public information on cross-tabulation, significance testing, weighting, or filters and segments, a notable silence for a platform pitched at enterprise research. 1 2 3 12 13
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
A mandatory terms-and-consent page whose revocation deletes that respondent's answers, anonymous surveys storing no identifiers and setting no cookies for respondents, IP addresses logged only at web-server level and kept seven days, and configurable scheduled full and partial deletion with contact details anonymised. Add a published technical and organisational measures document, a DPA listing sub-processors and a named data protection officer, and this is close to the compliance posture I need for panel data. 4 5 6 7 14 15
The Operations Manager
The best-documented area: a terms-and-consent page respondents must accept before starting with revocation that deletes their answers, anonymous surveys that store no identifiers and set no cookies, IP addresses kept only 7 days at web-server level, and a data retention function that schedules automatic full or partial deletion at account or survey level. A published data processing agreement listing sub-processors, published technical and organisational measures, a data protection officer contact, and TLS plus AES-256 encryption complete the picture; keys are platform-managed and we found no public information on field-level encryption, so it stops short of the very top. 15 14 4 5 6 7
The HR Lead
This is the part a works council can work with: an anonymous mode that stores only date and time, no cookies for respondents, IP addresses held solely in web-server logs for seven days and never cross-referenced with answers, and a data retention function that automatically full-deletes or anonymises answers on an administrator-set schedule per survey or account, also drivable by REST API. A consent page respondents must accept and can revoke — deleting their answers — plus published technical and organisational measures, a published DPA listing sub-processors and a named data protection officer complete the picture; we found no public information on field-level encryption of sensitive answers or an independent audit of the privacy controls. 7 5 14 15 4 6
The Academic Researcher
A Terms and Consent page can be toggled in as the first page of the instrument, respondents cannot proceed without accepting, and revoking consent — even retrospectively — deletes their answers: precisely the mechanism my ethics board asks about. Anonymous surveys store no identifying data and set no cookies for respondents, with IP addresses held only in web-server logs for seven days and never cross-referenced, while administrator-configurable retention schedules full or partial deletion that anonymises contact details. A published data processing agreement with sub-processor list, published technical and organisational measures, a data protection officer contact and encryption in transit and at rest complete the compliance file; we found no public information on field-level encryption or masking of sensitive answers. 4 5 6 14 15
The Data Protection Officer
This is the standard I hold every form tool to, and the pages hold up: a signable DPA listing all approved sub-processors sits on the vendor's own site with published technical and organisational measures and a named data protection officer; Terms and Consent at survey start blocks continuation until accepted and lets respondents revoke retrospectively, which deletes their answers; anonymous surveys store no linked identifiers and set no cookies for respondents. Data Retention is an administrator function with scheduled, irreversible deletion or anonymisation per account or survey, configurable in days after the end date and through the API. My caveats: IP addresses sit in web-server logs for seven days, separate from application data and not cross-referenced, and I found no public information on field-level encryption or masking of sensitive answers. 15 14 4 5 6 7
The Skeptic
This is where the evidence is strongest: anonymous surveys store only the date and time with no cookies for respondents, IP addresses are logged at web-server level only, kept seven days and not cross-referenced with survey data, a Terms and Consent page can be required to start a survey and revoked retroactively to delete that respondent's answers, administrators can schedule full or partial deletion through Data Retention, and there is a published DPA listing sub-processors, published technical and organisational measures, and a named data protection officer. Encryption is TLS 1.2+ in transit and AES-256 at rest, but the keys are platform-managed in Microsoft's key store; we found no public information on field-level encryption or customer-held keys. 4 5 6 7 14 15
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
EU hosting with a Germany-only option for qualifying customers, three named roles, SAML single sign-on across many identity providers with SCIM 2.0 directory sync and group mapping, and response exports including RAW and SPSS. The closing screen's Netigate branding cannot be removed, and we found no public information on customer-side audit logs, custom domains or a self-hosted edition. 6 7 9 12 16 17
The Operations Manager
Hosting is EU-only with a Germany-only option for qualifying customers, teams get Admin, System user and Standard user roles, and single sign-on is self-service SAML with a long provider list plus SCIM 2.0 directory sync that provisions and deactivates users automatically. However the vendor itself states the Netigate branding on the closing screen cannot be removed, single sign-on is a paid add-on outside all plans, and we found no public information on an audit log or on exporting the forms themselves. 4 6 16 17 9 12
The HR Lead
All customer data is processed in EU-only data centres with a Germany-hosted option for qualifying customers, single sign-on runs SAML 2.0 with a long provider list and enforcement per domain, and directory sync provisions and deactivates users over SCIM 2.0 with content reassigned on deactivation. The captured pages describe only three fixed account roles and give no customer-facing audit log, and the help centre states the Netigate branding on the survey closing screen cannot be removed, so full white-labelling is not available. 4 6 16 17 9 12
The Academic Researcher
All survey processing sits in EU-only data centres, with a Germany-hosted storage option for qualifying customers — enough for my faculty to keep data inside the EU. Single sign-on over SAML 2.0 with SCIM 2.0 provisioning, group-to-role mapping and enforcement scoped to e-mail domains, plus three named roles and unlimited users, is well documented, though single sign-on is a paid add-on not included in all plans. One caution for institutional use: the vendor's branding on the survey closing screen cannot be removed, so fully white-labelled instruments are out. 4 6 9 16 17
The Data Protection Officer
Data sits in EU-only data centres with a Germany-only option for qualifying customers, and accounts carry Admin, System user and Standard user roles that directory groups can map to product roles; SAML single sign-on works across a long list of providers with SCIM 2.0 provisioning, as a paid add-on. Reports export in documented formats and a REST API is referenced. The closing screen cannot shed Netigate branding, and I found no public information on a customer-facing audit log, custom domains or per-form role granularity. 6 7 4 17 16 9 12
The Skeptic
Hosting is EU by default with a Germany-only storage option, but only "for qualifying customers" — a condition the pages leave unpriced and undefined. Teams get three roles, SAML single sign-on with a long provider list and SCIM 2.0 provisioning, though single sign-on is a paid add-on; the support pages also state that the Netigate branding on a survey's closing screen cannot be removed, so white-labelling is not on the table. We found no public information on a customer-facing audit log, custom domains, or exporting the forms themselves into another tool. 3 6 7 9 16 17
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
Contracting entities in Stockholm and Frankfurt, personal data processed in the EU on EU-based data centres with AI features on Microsoft Azure in EU regions, a published DPA with a sub-processor list, and ISO 27001:2022 audited annually. The trust centre itself notes that sub-processor parent companies may sit outside the EU, and we found no public information on a SOC 2 certification for the vendor itself. 4 5 6 7
The Operations Manager
The chain is largely European and documented: Netigate AB in Stockholm and Netigate Deutschland GmbH in Frankfurt as contracting entities, EU-only data centres on Azure in EU regions, a published data processing agreement listing sub-processors stated to be located in the EU, and ISO 27001:2022 certification audited annually with a stated scope. The trust page itself notes that sub-processors' ultimate parent companies may be outside the EU, with the US Cloud Act exposure that implies, so it falls short of sovereign end to end. 4 5 6 7 1
The HR Lead
Netigate AB in Stockholm and Netigate Deutschland GmbH in Frankfurt are the contracting entities, processing runs on EU-only data centres with Microsoft Azure EU named for AI features and key management, the DPA lists all approved sub-processors and a sub-processor list is published, and ISO 27001:2022 is certified with no excluded controls and annual external audits. The trust pages state sub-processors are located in the EU even where their ultimate parent sits outside it, and the marketing website itself uses US providers under the Data Privacy Framework. 4 6 7 1 5
The Academic Researcher
The captured pages show a European chain: Netigate AB in Stockholm with Netigate Deutschland GmbH in Frankfurt as the DACH contracting entity, EU-only data centres with backups in EU data centres, and AI functionality hosted on Microsoft Azure in the EU with no customer data used for model training. A published data processing agreement lists all approved sub-processors, the trust pages state they are located in the EU even where the parent company sits outside it, and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is audited annually with no controls excluded. The vendor's own website does use US providers such as Meta, Google and LinkedIn for advertising under the Data Privacy Framework, but the stated purposes are marketing pages rather than survey responses. 1 4 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Netigate AB in Stockholm contracts through Netigate Deutschland GmbH in Frankfurt, hosting is EU-only with a Germany option, and the vendor publishes both a DPA and a sub-processor list on its own pages, stating that all sub-processors process in the EU, an adequacy country, or under Data Privacy Framework or SCC safeguards. ISO 27001:2022 is audited annually with a stated ISMS scope. Two cautions: the trust pages themselves note sub-processors' ultimate parents may sit outside the EU — Azure holds the platform-managed keys — and ownership and jurisdiction are confirmed only on the vendor's own pages. 5 7 6 4 1
The Skeptic
The chain is documentable end to end: Netigate AB in Stockholm with a German contracting entity in Frankfurt, EU-only data centres, AI functionality hosted in the EU on Microsoft Azure with a statement that customer data is not used for training, a published DPA that lists sub-processors, and ISO 27001:2022 audited annually with its scope stated. The parent question is the honest weak point: the trust page itself notes sub-processors may be EU-located while their ultimate parent sits outside the EU — Microsoft included, under US legal reach — so the homepage's "No US data transfer" speaks to data location rather than legal reach; the website's own marketing chain runs through Gong, Meta, Google, LinkedIn, Storylane and Calendly, though that touches site visitors rather than survey respondents. 1 4 5 6 7
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
A single public starting price of "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually" with unlimited users, responses and projects on every plan, and a free account on the German site whose limits are not described. Single sign-on is a paid add-on with no stated price and SPSS/Pivot exports belong to unnamed select plans, so the real annual cost for a given feature set is not computable from the public pages. 1 3 7 12 16
The Operations Manager
All a buyer can compute from public pages is a floor: "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually", with users, responses and projects stated as unlimited on every plan — which at least answers my question about the bill jumping with response counts. Everything else I need to budget is dark: no per-plan prices or comparison table, single sign-on is an unpriced paid add-on, SPSS and pivot exports sit in unnamed "select plans", and the free account's limits are not described. 3 1 16 12 7
The HR Lead
The pricing page publishes a single figure, "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually", with users, responses and projects described as unlimited on every plan and onboarding, customer success and ISO 27001 included as standard. The plans themselves, their prices and their feature differences are not public — single sign-on is a paid add-on with no figure given, SPSS and pivot exports belong to unnamed select plans, and Germany-only hosting is offered to "qualifying customers" — so the real annual cost is not computable from public pages alone. 3 1 16 12 6
The Academic Researcher
The pricing page states "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually", and the vendor publishes that users, responses and projects are unlimited on every plan, which at least removes per-respondent guessing. Beyond that entry figure the public pages stop for a buyer: single sign-on is a paid add-on for which we found no public price, SPSS and pivot exports sit on "select plans" that are not named, and we found no public information on VAT treatment, cancellation terms or a plan comparison table. I could not compute the real annual cost of a faculty licence from public pages alone. 1 3 12 16
The Data Protection Officer
A public starting point is stated exactly as "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually", with unlimited users, responses and projects said to be included on every plan, and a free account registration exists. But single sign-on is a paid add-on with no published price, SPSS and pivot table formats are stated to belong to select plans without the plan differences set out, Germany hosting is reserved for "qualifying customers", and I found no public information on plan-by-plan prices, add-on prices or the free tier's limits. 3 1 16 7 12
The Skeptic
One number is public — "Starting from €7000/year Billed annually" — with unlimited users, responses and projects claimed on every plan, so at least the floor is visible. Everything else a budget needs sits behind the thirty-minute demo: no plan tiers or comparison table, single sign-on is "a paid add-on" with no price, SPSS and pivot exports sit on unnamed "select plans", a free account exists with its limits not described, and Germany-only storage is for "qualifying customers". We found no public information on add-on pricing, VAT treatment, minimum terms or cancellation. 1 3 7 12 16
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 Netigate
Is Netigate European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Netigate as EU-Made.
Where does Netigate store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
Does Netigate have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Netigate?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Formbricks (4/5), easyfeedback (3.5/5) and QuestionPro (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: Netigate 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, Legal entity, Hosting location, Hosting options. 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.
- 7 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
- 4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 subprocessors 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 compliance 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 data 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 (17)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing page www.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Trust centre www.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Terms and DPA page www.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Legal notice with subprocessor and TOM links www.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Form & survey building — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Form & survey building — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 17 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap support.netigate.net Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →