Forms & Surveys

Netigate

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by Netigate AB · www.netigate.net

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

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

Method and versions

The Market Researcher v1.0 · The Operations Manager v1.0 · The HR Lead v1.0 · The Academic Researcher v1.0 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 29 Oct 2026

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

Link to this page

HTML

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

Markdown

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

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

Netigate alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Academic Researcher

Weighted verdict

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

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

Scored by The Academic Researcher

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

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

Form & survey building

How this is scored

What can be built without code: question and field types, conditional logic and branching, piping and hidden fields, calculations, multi-page forms and progress, templates, design and branding, multiple languages, and accessible output for respondents.

0 — Not a form or survey builder; questions cannot be authored in the product.

3 — A builder with the common question types and a few templates; logic, branding or languages are basic or not described.

5 — A drag-and-drop builder with a wide range of question types, conditional logic that shows, hides or skips questions, multi-page forms, a template library, and the customer's logo, colours and fonts.

8 — Advanced logic with piping, hidden fields, calculations and scoring, randomisation, surveys translated into several languages from one master, reusable question libraries, custom CSS or themes, and accessible forms with a named standard (WCAG 2.1 AA or BITV) stated.

10 — Best-in-class authoring: complex research designs (loops, quotas in logic, conjoint or MaxDiff), versioned forms with change history, a published accessibility conformance report, and every element of a form available through the API.

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

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

Report an error

Distribution, response collection & workflows

How this is scored

How forms reach people and what happens to an answer: share links, embedding, QR codes, email invitations with reminders, contact lists and panels, offline or kiosk collection, file uploads, payments and signatures inside the form, notifications, approval or assignment of submissions, and automations that pass a response on to other tools.

0 — No way to collect responses from other people; the product only analyses data collected elsewhere.

3 — A share link and an embed code, with responses visible in the product; invitations, notifications and onward workflows are basic or not described.

5 — Links, embedding and QR codes, email notifications on submission, file uploads, a few native integrations (spreadsheets, CRM, chat) plus a connector service such as Zapier or Make, and either email invitations with reminders or payments inside the form.

8 — Invitations to managed contact lists with reminders and unique links, response quotas and closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, submissions routed for approval or assignment, conditional notifications, documented webhooks and a REST API to read and write responses.

10 — Collection at research and process scale: panel or sample sourcing, multi-channel distribution (email, SMS, web, app intercept) with deduplication, workflows with branching and audit trail, and every response event exposed to the customer's systems in real time with a stated delivery guarantee.

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

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

Report an error

Survey analysis & reporting

How this is scored

What the product does with the answers: live results and charts, filters and segments, cross-tabulation, NPS, CSAT and other standard scores, open-text and sentiment analysis, shareable dashboards and reports, and exports to the formats analysts use (CSV, Excel, SPSS, R).

0 — No view of results inside the product; submissions can only be forwarded or downloaded one at a time.

3 — A table of responses with simple charts per question and a CSV export; filters, comparisons and report sharing are basic or not described.

5 — Charts per question, filters and segments, at least one comparison or cross-tab view, standard scores such as NPS, shareable or exportable reports (PDF, presentation), and exports to CSV and Excel.

8 — Cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, open-text coding or sentiment analysis, trend reports across survey waves, dashboards for different audiences with permissions, and SPSS or R exports with labels.

10 — A research-grade analysis environment: statistical models beyond cross-tabs (driver analysis, regression), benchmarks, text analytics with themes the customer can edit, and every analysis reproducible from documented exports or an analytics API.

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

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

Report an error

Consent, GDPR & respondent data

How this is scored

What the product gives the customer to collect personal data lawfully: consent and privacy-notice fields, anonymous surveys that really drop IP addresses and identifiers, retention periods and automatic deletion, handling of access and erasure requests, encryption of responses, a data processing agreement, and controls over cookies and tracking on the form itself.

0 — The product collects no personal data from respondents, so there is nothing to protect; or it is a different kind of product.

3 — A privacy policy and a statement of GDPR compliance, with a checkbox field usable for consent; anonymity, retention and deletion are not described.

5 — A data processing agreement offered to customers, a consent or privacy-notice field, an anonymous mode that does not store IP addresses, responses deletable by the customer, and encryption in transit and at rest stated.

8 — Retention periods with automatic deletion, tools for access and erasure requests per respondent, field-level encryption or masking of sensitive answers, forms that set no tracking cookies by default, a published list of technical and organisational measures, and a named data protection officer.

10 — Data protection by design and evidenced: end-to-end or customer-key encryption of responses, documented data minimisation defaults, a DPA with audit rights and subprocessor change notice, records of consent kept with each response, and an independent audit of the privacy controls published.

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

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

Report an error

Hosting choice, teams & portability

How this is scored

What the customer may choose about where and how the product runs and who uses it: a selectable data region or EU-only hosting, self-hosting or an on-premise edition, team workspaces with roles and permissions, single sign-on, an audit log, custom domains and white-labelling, and a complete export of forms and responses that another tool can import.

0 — A single-user tool with no export of forms or responses.

3 — Shared access for a team and a response export; data location, roles and single sign-on are not described.

5 — Hosting location stated with an EU option, team workspaces with at least two roles, single sign-on on a higher plan, a custom domain or removed vendor branding, and an export of all responses.

8 — EU-only hosting selectable per account or a self-hosted edition, granular roles per form or folder, SSO with SAML and user provisioning, an audit log, white-labelling, and forms and responses exportable in a documented format with an API.

10 — Full control over operation: an open-source or on-premise edition with feature parity, customer-chosen region per workspace, administrative APIs, a documented migration path in and out, and an uptime commitment with a published status history.

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where forms and responses are hosted, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, email delivery, payment providers, analytics, AI features). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; responses often carry personal and sometimes special-category data, so the whole chain counts, not only the database.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.

3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.

5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (email, analytics, AI features, support) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

The 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per plan and per user, response or submission limits and what happens above them, which features (logic, branding removal, SSO, EU hosting, analysis modules) need a higher plan, add-ons, minimum term and the free tier's limits.

0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.

3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with users, responses or features is unclear.

5 — Plans are public with prices and their main limits (users, responses, forms), but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, EU hosting, extra responses, branding removal) is unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every plan priced publicly with its limits, overage or extra-response prices, feature differences per plan in a comparison table, billing period, VAT treatment and cancellation terms stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of users, responses and features, with every add-on, enterprise option, support level and data-return term published.

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built 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

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

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 →