whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Forms & Surveys

Qualtrics

Rest of world 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 Qualtrics LLC · www.qualtrics.com

Compare with SurveyMonkey → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Qualtrics: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Qualtrics: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Qualtrics 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 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Distribution, response collection & workflows 2 of 5 1.5 of 5
Survey analysis & reporting 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Consent, GDPR & respondent data 3 of 5 3 of 5
Hosting choice, teams & portability 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1.5 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Sources (6)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page (market research) www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Data protection documentation www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security page www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Terms of service www.qualtrics.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →