Forms & Surveys
Qualtrics
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Qualtrics LLC · www.qualtrics.com
Compare with SurveyMonkey → 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.
Qualtrics at a glance
- Vendor
- Qualtrics LLC
- 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
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Qualtrics 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Qualtrics LLC of Provo, Utah sells an experience-management and survey research platform for enterprises. 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
Qualtrics LLC of Provo, Utah sells an experience-management and survey research platform for enterprises. The bench scores it strongest on consent and data protection, where five of six judges gave 5-6 for documented consent-form building, GDPR erasure that deletes personal data from survey responses, tickets and contacts, customer control over what is collected, retained and deleted, and redaction of sensitive data. Hosting and administration clustered at 4 on single sign-on with multi-factor authentication, bring-your-own-key encryption and project approval workflows. The genuine split is sovereignty, with scores spread from 0 to 3: stated safeguards — transfers under EU or UK adequacy decisions or EU Standard Contractual Clauses, ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, named representatives in Dublin and London — sit against hosting location, ownership and subprocessors that no captured page describes, plus AI-training and advertising-partner disclosures. The data protection officer judge scored zero on every criterion, citing possible IP collection from respondents, AI training and advertising-partner sharing. Analysis and reporting also split, and no prices appear on any captured page.
Speaks for it
- Consent-form building, GDPR erasure that reaches personal data in survey responses, tickets and contacts, and redaction or restriction of sensitive data are all documented.
- The customer decides what data is collected, retained and deleted.
- Single sign-on with multi-factor authentication, restricted internal access, project approval workflows and bring-your-own-key encryption are documented on the security page.
- Transfers rely on EU or UK adequacy decisions or EU Standard Contractual Clauses, with an EU representative (Qualtrics Ireland Limited, Dublin) and a UK representative named.
- ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, HITRUST and FedRAMP certifications are stated.
Held against it
- Hosting location, ownership and the subprocessor chain are not described on the captured pages.
- The privacy statement says survey respondents' IP addresses may be collected for fraud prevention, and an anonymous mode is not documented.
- Cross-tabulation, standard scores such as NPS, and exports to SPSS, R, CSV or Excel are not described on the captured pages.
- Email invitations with reminders, response quotas, and a documented response API or webhooks are not described on the captured pages.
- The privacy statement discloses AI processing of personal information including model training (in a policy that excludes customer platform data) and sharing of certain personal information with advertising partners.
Best for
- You run employee engagement, 360 feedback, brand or market research programmes and need documented consent, erasure and sensitive-data controls for a works council or ethics review.
- Your security review requires single sign-on with multi-factor authentication and customer-managed encryption keys before any tool is adopted.
- You depend on built-in frameworks, benchmarks and AI-guided study design rather than configuring research methodology from scratch.
Avoid if
- You must guarantee respondents anonymity: the privacy statement documents that IP addresses may be collected from survey respondents for fraud prevention.
- You need to verify where responses are hosted and which subprocessors touch them before signing: the contracting entity is Qualtrics, LLC of Provo, Utah, and the statement describes transfers to affiliates and third parties in other jurisdictions.
- Your analyst workflow depends on cross-tabulation, NPS and SPSS exports you can verify in advance: the only portable export described on the captured pages serves individual privacy requests.
- You need a cost figure before engaging sales — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 1.5 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 2 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 1.5 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 3 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
Form & survey building
panel disagrees
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
Surveys are clearly authored in the product — documentation covers building a consent form and the market research pages describe AI guiding study design — but the captured pages give no detail on question types, conditional logic, quotas, translated survey masters or accessibility. 3 2 1
The Operations Manager
The survey-platform documentation covers building a consent form and the market-research pages describe AI guiding study design, so question authoring clearly exists, but question types, conditional logic, templates and branding for the builder are not described on the captured pages. For a colleague building an event registration without IT, there is nothing here to judge how far they can get. 1 2 3
The HR Lead
A survey builder clearly exists — employee engagement and 360 studies, AI-guided study design and a documented consent-form use case — but the captured pages describe use cases rather than authoring detail; question types, logic, templates, branding, languages and accessible output are not described on them. 1 2 3
The Academic Researcher
Building a consent form on the survey platform is documented in the data-protection pages, and the research pages market AI-guided study design, concept testing, feature optimisation and pricing validation. We found no public information on question types, conditional branching, randomisation, validated scales, survey translations or accessible output, so for my ethics-board purposes only the basic authoring level is evidenced. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The data-protection documentation walks through building a consent form, confirming surveys are authored in the product, and the platform is marketed for research design. The captured pages give no detail on question types, conditional logic, languages, templates or accessibility, so I cannot verify any of the authoring depth I would want to see before a department deploys this. 1 3 5
The Skeptic
Authoring is proven — the support pages document building a consent form, and the research pages describe AI guiding study design — but we found no public information on question types, conditional logic, templates, languages or accessibility. The marketing talks frameworks and benchmarks; the builder itself stays undescribed. 1 2 3
Distribution, response collection & workflows
panel disagrees
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
Omnichannel feedback collection, human panels combined with synthetic respondents, project workflows with approval controls, automation and an integrations marketplace are all documented. The fieldwork pieces I depend on — email invitations with reminders, unique links, response quotas, documented webhooks or a response API — are not described on these pages. 1 2 4
The Operations Manager
Surveys are sent to individuals and responses come back into the platform, with omnichannel feedback, an integrations marketplace, intelligent automation and human or synthetic panels named. However, we found no public information on file uploads, payments inside the form, submission notifications or routing a response into a CRM or spreadsheet — exactly what damage reports with photos and paid order requests would need. 1 2 5
The HR Lead
Omnichannel feedback collection, human and synthetic panels, intelligent automation and an integrations marketplace are stated, and the privacy statement confirms customers send surveys to individuals. Invitations with reminders, quotas, offline collection, approval routing, webhooks and API detail are not described on the captured pages. 1 2 5
The Academic Researcher
The privacy statement confirms that customers send surveys to individuals and that respondent IP addresses may be collected for fraud prevention, while the homepage advertises a marketplace of integrations plus automated recommendations and responses. We found no public information on email invitations with reminders, managed contact lists, response quotas and closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, or a documented API and webhooks for responses. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer
Intelligent automation, omnichannel feedback, human panels combined with AI synthetic respondents, and project approval workflows mirroring internal processes are all documented, and the erasure tooling refers to survey responses, tickets and contacts. What is missing for me is the mundane detail — invitations, reminders, quotas, links and embedding — none of which the captured pages describe. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
Surveys clearly reach individuals — the privacy statement says Qualtrics may collect IP addresses from survey respondents when a customer sends a survey — and a marketplace, integrations, intelligent automation and human-plus-synthetic panels are all listed. But we found no public information on invitations, reminders, quotas, webhooks or an API, so the collection mechanics rest on category names rather than documentation. 1 2 4 5
Survey analysis & reporting
panel disagrees
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
Analysis plainly happens inside the product, from AI-driven synthesis and connected insights to built-in benchmarks and frameworks and admin usage reports. The pages never show cross-tabulation, NPS or CSAT scores, open-text theming, or exports to Excel or SPSS, so I cannot verify the analyst workflow I need before a board meeting. 2 1 4
The Operations Manager
The pages advertise AI synthesis from study design to results, connected insights across research and customer-experience data, built-in benchmarks and frameworks, and admin reports on user engagement and usage. Charts per question, filters, cross-tabulation, standard scores such as NPS, and exports to CSV, Excel or SPSS are not described on the captured pages. 1 2 4
The HR Lead
AI-guided synthesis, a research-grade model trained on millions of responses, built-in benchmarks, connected insights and admin reports with department-specific usage are stated. Live charts, filters, cross-tabs, standard scores and export formats for analysts are not described on the captured pages. 1 2 4
The Academic Researcher
Analysis appears in broad terms — AI guiding work from study design to synthesis, built-in frameworks and benchmarks, a research-grade model trained on millions of responses — alongside admin reports on usage and engagement. We found no public information on result tables, charts, filters, cross-tabulation with significance testing, or exports to SPSS, R, CSV or Excel; the portable machine-readable export in the privacy statement exists to serve individual data-subject requests rather than researchers, and label-preserving statistical exports are decisive for me. 1 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
Built-in frameworks and benchmarks, AI-guided synthesis from study design onward, connected insights across research and experience data, and admin usage reports are documented. I found no public information on cross-tabulation, standard scores such as NPS, dashboards with permissions, or export formats such as CSV, Excel or SPSS. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
The pages claim AI-guided synthesis, a research-grade model trained on millions of responses, built-in benchmarks and admin usage reports, yet we found no public information on results views, charts, filters, cross-tabulation, standard scores, or analyst exports such as CSV, Excel or SPSS. The one portable, machine-readable export documented belongs to privacy requests, not to analysts. 1 2 4
Consent, GDPR & respondent data
panel disagrees
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 forms are a documented use case, the customer decides what data is collected, retained and deleted, GDPR erasure reaches survey responses and contacts, sensitive answers can be redacted or restricted, and encryption in transit plus bring-your-own-key are stated. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement or an anonymous mode, and the privacy statement says respondent IP addresses may be collected for fraud prevention. 3 4 5
The Operations Manager
Building a consent form is a documented use case, the customer decides what data is collected, retained and deleted with tooling that deletes personal data from survey responses to satisfy GDPR erasure requests, encryption in transit with an optional customer-held key layer and PII redaction are stated, and a data protection officer is named. The privacy statement does say respondent IP addresses may be collected for fraud prevention, and we found no public information on a published data processing agreement or an anonymous mode. 3 4 5
The HR Lead
Consent forms are documented, the customer decides what is collected, retained and deleted, per-respondent GDPR erasure across survey responses and contacts is stated, sensitive data can be redacted or restricted, a DPO is reachable and security measures are published. For my works council the decisive fact is the other one: the privacy statement documents collection of survey respondents' IP addresses for fraud prevention, and an anonymous mode that does not store identifiers is not documented; the statement also describes processing personal information with AI including model training, while saying the policy does not apply to customer-collected data processed as processor. 3 4 5
The Academic Researcher
This is the best-evidenced area: consent-form building, erasure tooling for personal data in survey responses, customer control over what is collected, retained and deleted, redaction and restriction of sensitive data, a data protection officer contact, EU and UK representatives, and standard-contractual-clause transfer safeguards are all documented. Against that, the privacy statement says respondent IP addresses may be collected from survey respondents for fraud prevention, and we found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, a standard statement of encryption at rest beyond optional customer-managed keys, or a published data processing agreement; the statement also discloses AI processing of personal information for model training while excluding customer platform data from its scope. 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Strong operational controls: a documented consent-form use case, GDPR erasure across responses, tickets and contacts, redaction and restriction of PII, encryption in transit with bring-your-own-key, customer-set retention and deletion, and a data protection officer contact. I stop short of an unconditional sign-off because the privacy statement says IP addresses may be collected from survey respondents for fraud prevention with no anonymous mode described anywhere I was shown, and it discloses processing personal information with AI for model training and sharing data with advertising partners. 3 4 5
The Skeptic
There are real tools here: consent-form building is documented, GDPR erasure can delete personal data from survey responses, the customer decides what is collected, retained and deleted, sensitive answers can be redacted, and a data protection officer is reachable. But the privacy statement also says IP addresses may be collected from survey respondents for fraud prevention, so I would not trust an anonymity claim on that basis, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement or on tracking cookies on forms; the AI-training language sits in the part of the policy that excludes customer survey data, which is stated but thin comfort. 3 4 5
Hosting choice, teams & portability
panel disagrees
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
Single sign-on and multi-factor authentication are stated and admin reports break usage down by department, so team use is real. We found no public information on hosting location or an EU option, granular roles, an audit log, white-labelling, or a full export of forms and responses — the only portability described is a machine-readable format for individual privacy requests. 4 5
The Operations Manager
Single sign-on with multi-factor authentication, restricted internal access, project-approval workflows and a system-status page are documented, along with admin reports on engagement and usage. Hosting location, an EU option, custom domains or white-labelling, an audit log and a complete export of forms and responses that another tool could import are not described on the captured pages. 1 4
The HR Lead
Single sign-on with multi-factor authentication, bring-your-own-key encryption and admin usage reports are documented, and data-subject export in a portable format is stated. Hosting location, an EU hosting option, team roles, an audit log, custom domains and a documented customer-side export of all responses are not described on the captured pages. 4 5
The Academic Researcher
Single sign-on with multi-factor authentication, restricted internal access, project approval workflows, customer-controlled retention and customer-managed encryption keys are documented on the security page. We found no public information on where responses are hosted, an EU hosting option, self-hosting, granular roles, custom domains, white-labelling or an audit log, and the only portable export documented serves individual privacy requests rather than institutional portability — a real problem when the faculty asks where our data lives. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Single sign-on with multi-factor authentication, bring-your-own-key encryption, and internal access restrictions even within the customer's organisation are documented, alongside admin usage reports. I found no public information on a selectable EU data region or self-hosted edition, granular roles per form, an audit log, white-labelling, or a complete export of forms and responses another tool could import; the portable machine-readable export I saw covers individual rights requests only. 4 5 6
The Skeptic
Single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, organisational access controls, project approval workflows, admin usage reports and bring-your-own-key encryption are documented, and a system status page is listed. But we found no public information on hosting location or a selectable data region, granular team roles, an audit log, white-labelling, or an export of forms and responses another tool could import — the only portable export named is the one for privacy requests. 1 4 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 Qualtrics, LLC of Provo, Utah, co-headquartered with Seattle; EU and UK data representatives are named in Dublin and London, and transfers rely on standard contractual clauses or adequacy decisions rather than the Data Privacy Framework. We found no public information on where responses are hosted, on the subprocessor chain, or on a published data processing agreement, and the privacy statement reserves the right to train AI on personal information and to share personal information with advertising partners. 5 6 4
The Operations Manager
The contracting and responsible entity is Qualtrics, LLC of Provo, Utah, with Irish and UK data representatives appointed, transfers relying on adequacy decisions or EU Standard Contractual Clauses, and ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 stated. Hosting location, ownership and every subprocessor remain unknown on the captured pages, which also state that personal information may be processed using AI technologies including for training models, and that certain personal information has been shared with advertising partners. 4 5 6
The HR Lead
The responsible and contracting entity is Qualtrics, LLC of Provo, Utah, co-headquartered in Seattle; an Irish EU representative and a UK representative are named, transfers rely on adequacy decisions or EU Standard Contractual Clauses, and ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, HITRUST and ISO 42001 are stated. Hosting location and the subprocessor chain are not described on the pages we read, and the statement describes cross-border transfers of personal information. 4 5 6
The Academic Researcher
The contracting entity is Qualtrics, LLC of Provo, Utah, with Qualtrics Ireland Limited and a London entity named as EU and UK data representatives, and transfers rely on adequacy decisions or EU standard contractual clauses rather than the Data Privacy Framework. Hosting location and subprocessors are not described in the captured pages, and we found no published data processing agreement there, so the chain my faculty would need to approve is largely unevidenced even though ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, HITRUST and FedRAMP certifications are stated. 2 4 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Qualtrics, LLC of Provo, Utah, and I found no public information on hosting location, ownership or the subprocessors who would touch responses, while the privacy statement confirms transfers to affiliates and third parties in other jurisdictions. Standard Contractual Clauses or adequacy decisions, an Ireland-based EU representative, and published ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 certifications are stated safeguards, but I cannot verify where responses sit or who processes them, and the AI training and advertising-partner disclosures concern me for a chain that may carry health data. 4 5 6
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Qualtrics, LLC of Provo, Utah, with cross-border transfers to affiliates and third parties stated, a Dublin representative named, and certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, HITRUST) listed — though the framework certification comes with the vendor's own statement that transfers rely on adequacy decisions and Standard Contractual Clauses rather than the framework. We found no public information on where responses are hosted or who the subprocessors are, and the privacy statement discloses sharing certain personal information with advertising partners. The chain a survey answer travels is simply not shown. 4 5 6
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per plan and per user, response or submission limits and what happens above them, which features (logic, branding removal, SSO, EU hosting, analysis modules) need a higher plan, add-ons, minimum term and the free tier's limits.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with users, responses or features is unclear.
5 — Plans are public with prices and their main limits (users, responses, forms), but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, EU hosting, extra responses, branding removal) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every plan priced publicly with its limits, overage or extra-response prices, feature differences per plan in a comparison table, billing period, VAT treatment and cancellation terms stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of users, responses and features, with every add-on, enterprise option, support level and data-return term published.
The Market Researcher
We found no public prices on any page we read: the homepage routes buyers to a demo request, the terms define consumption in usage metrics without figures, and the market research page claims predictable pricing without a number. An annual research budget cannot be computed from the public pages captured. 1 6 2
The Operations Manager
The captured pages contain no price figures and the homepage routes buyers to Request Demo, while the general terms define Usage Metrics as the units customers consume, so billing appears usage-based with no public unit prices. The "predictable pricing" line on the market-research page carries no numbers, so an annual cost for a given volume of registrations or damage reports cannot be computed from public pages alone. 1 2 6
The HR Lead
We found no public plan prices on the captured pages: the buying path shown is a demo request, the terms define usage metrics as the units customers consume without pricing them, and the only pricing statement is the marketing claim of "predictable pricing". A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from these pages. 1 2 6
The Academic Researcher
We found no public information on prices, plans, limits or a free tier on any captured page; the buying route on the homepage is a request-a-demo form, and the general terms describe consumption through Usage Metrics without stating what those units cost. The market-research page claims the unified platform delivers predictable pricing, but without numbers a procurement office cannot compute any annual cost from public pages. 1 2 6
The Data Protection Officer
No public prices appear on any captured page: the homepage routes buyers to a demo request, contracts run through Order Forms, and consumption is measured in Usage Metrics whose rates are never published. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from these pages, whatever the marketing says about predictable pricing. 1 2 6
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 | — | 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Qualtrics
Is Qualtrics European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Qualtrics as Rest of world.
Where does Qualtrics store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
Does Qualtrics have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Qualtrics?
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: Qualtrics alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 28 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (qualtrics.com, qualtrics.com/market-research, qualtrics.com/support/survey-platform/getting-started/data-protection-privacy, qualtrics.com/platform/security, qualtrics.com/privacy-statement, qualtrics.com/legal/customers/gtcs). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 13 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
- 7 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
- 5 data 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 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 legal 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page (market research) www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Data protection documentation www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Terms of service www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →