Forms & Surveys
QuestionPro
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by QuestionPro, Inc. · www.questionpro.com
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.
QuestionPro at a glance
- Vendor
- QuestionPro, Inc.
- 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
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 28 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates QuestionPro 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. QuestionPro, Inc. 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
QuestionPro, Inc. is a survey and research platform that scored strongest on authoring and analysis and weakest on sovereignty. Form building scored 8-9 on conjoint, MaxDiff, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger question types, compound branching and multilingual surveys; analysis and reporting also scored 8-9, with the statistical tests gated to the Research license and sentiment analysis English-only and charged in credits. Consent and data protection scored 6-7: respondent rights are documented, but the pages state IP addresses may be collected and retention is indefinite while the account is active and paid. Sovereignty scored 3-4: the contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon under Washington state law with JAMS arbitration in San Francisco, subprocessors appear only as categories, hosting location is not confirmed on the vendor's own pages, and ownership and data residency are recorded as unknown. Pricing transparency scored 5-6, with the Research Edition a custom quote. The judges did not genuinely split: every criterion spans one point, and overall totals range from 5.7 to 7.5.
Speaks for it
- Form building scores 8-9 on documented conjoint, MaxDiff, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger question types with compound branching
- Analysis and reporting scores 8-9, with cross-tabs, Pearson's chi-square, weighting and an SPSS export
- Distribution spans email, SMS, CATI telephone, a mobile app and PIN-protected kiosk mode on iPad and Android
- Respondents can download their own data and request deletion at individual response level, under a standard processor agreement for all customers
- Public prices cover the free tier (1 user, 200 responses per survey), Advanced at $99 per user / per month Billed annually and Team Edition at $83 per user / per month Billed annually
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 3-4, the lowest criterion, with the contracting entity QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon under Washington state law and JAMS arbitration in San Francisco
- Hosting location is not confirmed on the vendor's own pages, and ownership and data residency are recorded as unknown
- The pages state IP addresses may be collected, and we found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops them
- Retention is indefinite while the account is active and paid, with removal after a 30-day grace period following cancellation
- The Research Edition is custom quote, and sentiment analysis runs on a credit wallet at 0.05 credits per response
Best for
- You need research-grade authoring — conjoint, MaxDiff, Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, quotas, compound branching — for market research or academic studies
- Your analysis depends on statistical cross-tabs, weighting and SPSS exports
- You collect responses through many channels, including PIN-protected kiosks on iPad or Android
- You run multilingual studies and rely on auto-translate across the eight default languages
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires a European contracting entity — the contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon under Washington state law with JAMS arbitration in San Francisco
- Your studies must be anonymous by design — the pages state IP addresses may be collected and retention is indefinite while the account is active and paid
- You must compute a full annual cost from public pages alone — the Research Edition is custom quote and sentiment analysis runs on a credit wallet
- You need to remove vendor branding — the terms prohibit removing the 'Powered by QuestionPro' footer
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 4.5 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 3.5 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 4 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 3.5 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 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
Research-grade authoring is documented: quota management, looping, randomisation, text piping, quiz scoring and custom scripting, plus conjoint, MaxDiff, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger question types, with compound branching on AND/OR rules across multiple questions and 255 custom variables. Eight interface languages with auto-translate cover my four study markets, custom CSS, logo and branded subdomain give the brand look, and Section 508 accessibility compliance is stated — though we found no public information on versioned forms with change history or a published accessibility conformance report. 2 4 5 9
The Operations Manager
The builder documentation covers a very wide question set including payment fields, conjoint and MaxDiff, compound branching with AND/OR rules on earlier answers, piping into custom variables, randomisation, looping, quota logic and quiz scoring, custom CSS with branded subdomains and twenty-plus themes, multilingual surveys with auto-translate, and Section 508 accessibility compliance is stated. That reaches an advanced authoring level, though I found no public information on versioned forms with change history or a published accessibility conformance report. 2 9 8 5
The HR Lead
The authoring side is research-grade: branching and skip logic built on boolean operators with custom variables, geolocation, email-list and device-type criteria, default logic and rule testing, plus text piping, randomisation, quota management, looping and quiz scoring. Conjoint, MaxDiff, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger question types, twenty-plus themes with custom CSS, logos and branded subdomains, and multilingual surveys with auto-translate (German among the default languages) cover everything an engagement survey needs. Section 508 accessibility compliance is stated, though we found no public information on versioned forms with change history or a published accessibility conformance report. 2 8 9 4 5
The Academic Researcher
For a research instrument this is close to what my ethics board would want in the tool itself: looping, quota management, randomised answer options, text piping, custom variables up to 255, conjoint and MaxDiff question types, and compound branching across multiple questions with AND/OR conditions that can jump, terminate, or chain to another survey. Multilingual surveys with auto-translate, custom CSS, themes and a branded subdomain are documented, and accessibility is claimed against the US Section 508 guideline rather than WCAG 2.1 AA or BITV; we found no public information on versioned forms with change history or reusable question libraries. 2 9 8 5
The Data Protection Officer
The authoring documentation is deep: compound branching with boolean operators, actions from jumping to a question to chaining surveys, text piping, custom variables, randomisation, looping and quota management, plus research question types such as conjoint, MaxDiff, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger. Themes, custom CSS and eight default languages are stated, and accessibility is claimed against the US Section 508 guideline. I found no public information on versioned forms with change history or a published accessibility conformance report, so I stop below the top level. 2 8 9 5
The Skeptic
Wide authoring is documented: conjoint, MaxDiff, Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger question types, branching keyed to answers given pages earlier, piping into custom variables, randomisation, quiz scoring, custom CSS and themes, and multilingual surveys with auto-translate across eight default languages. Accessibility gets a named standard, Section 508. We found no public information on reusable question libraries, versioned forms with change history, or a published accessibility conformance report, so I stop short of the top. 2 4 5 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
Invitations with reminders and respondent tracking are part of the anonymity program, contacts import from an address book, and distribution spans email, SMS, social media, CATI and a mobile app with a genuine kiosk mode (PIN-protected, per-page timer) on iPad and Android. Webhooks, Zapier and an API plus Salesforce, Tableau and Dynamics integrations cover onward workflows; we found no public information on submissions routed for approval or panel sourcing, and per-minute response limits depend on the license. 2 5 6 7 9 11
The Operations Manager
Email invitations to imported contacts with reminders, SMS, social, mobile app and telephone distribution, kiosk and offline collection on iPad and Android, a payment question type, and a deep integration list — Salesforce, Google Sheets, HubSpot, Microsoft Dynamics, Zapier, webhooks and an API — cover what I need for a submission to land in the CRM or spreadsheet without copy and paste. I found no public information on file uploads, QR codes, approval routing for submissions or conditional notifications. 2 11 6 5
The HR Lead
Distribution runs through email, social media, custom URLs, SMS, CATI telephone surveys and a mobile app, with kiosk mode on iPad and Android (PIN-protected, with page timers) for on-site collection, contact import with reminders, and a payment question type. Responses flow onward through Zapier, webhooks, custom scripting, an API and integrations such as Salesforce, Google Sheets and Tableau. We found no public information on unique invitation links, response quotas with closing rules, or routing of submissions for approval or assignment. 2 11 5 6
The Academic Researcher
Distribution is documented across email, social media, custom URLs, SMS, telephone (CATI) and a mobile app, with kiosk mode on iPad and Android protected by a PIN and page timers, email distribution lists with reminders and respondent tracking under an anonymity programme, and Zapier, webhooks, an API and native integrations for onward flows. We found no public information on submissions routed for approval or assignment, conditional notifications, panel sourcing, or deduplication across channels. 2 11 5 9
The Data Protection Officer
Distribution is multi-channel — email with imported contact lists, SMS, CATI telephone surveys, a mobile app and locked-down kiosk collection on iPad and Android — with reminders, respondent tracking, webhooks, Zapier and Salesforce, Tableau and HubSpot integrations stated. I found no public information on unique one-per-respondent invitation links, routing submissions for approval or assignment, or conditional notifications. That puts collection above the middle level but short of the documented routing and API picture I would want before a departmental rollout. 2 5 6 11
The Skeptic
Multi-channel distribution is documented — email to imported contact lists with reminders, SMS, telephone (CATI), social, a mobile app, and a locked-down kiosk mode with PIN and timer — plus webhooks, Zapier and named integrations from Salesforce to Tableau. What kept me down: we found no public information on submissions routed for approval or assignment, conditional notifications, or the documented scope of the API for reading and writing responses; the only rate rule shown is a per-minute response limit tied to license level. 2 5 6 9 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
Cross-tabs come with Pearson's chi-square, p-values, degrees of freedom, column proportions and Fisher's exact test (top license), alongside weighting, trend analysis, NPS, TURF, correlation and conjoint/MaxDiff analysis, with SPSS, Excel, PowerPoint and PDF exports and shareable report links. Sentiment analysis tags open-ends into themes with a bubble chart and Excel export — English only, phrases under ten words skipped — and dashboards exist, though we found no public information on per-audience dashboard permissions or themes the customer can edit. 2 9 12 13
The Operations Manager
Cross-tabs go deep — Pearson's chi-square with p-values and degrees of freedom, column proportion and Fisher's exact tests, banner tables, filters, weighting and row and column means — alongside NPS, trend analysis, sentiment tagging with an Excel export of themes, real-time dashboards, and exports to Excel, PDF, PowerPoint and SPSS. Several statistical options and the sentiment tool sit behind the top research licence, and dashboards with per-audience permissions are not described. 2 12 13
The HR Lead
For the reports my managers read: cross-tabs with Pearson's chi-square, p-values, column proportion and Fisher's exact tests (the statistical options gated to the Research license), filters by question, response status and custom variable, plus trend, correlation, TURF and GAP analyses, weighting, NPS, and exports to Excel, PDF, PowerPoint and SPSS. Sentiment analysis tags open-text comments into themes with a bubble chart, drill-down and Excel export, charged per response in credits. We found no public information on dashboards scoped to different audiences with permissions, or on benchmark comparisons. 2 12 13
The Academic Researcher
Cross-tabulation comes with Pearson's chi-square including p-value and degrees of freedom, a column proportions test, significant cells and Fisher's exact test (the statistical options gated to the Research license), plus weighting, trend analysis, correlation, TURF, real-time dashboards and an SPSS export — the export my faculty needs most. Sentiment tagging of open-ends exports to Excel with themes and raw data; we found no public information on an R export or on whether value labels survive the SPSS export. 12 2 13
The Data Protection Officer
Cross-tabulation comes with Pearson's chi-square, p-values, column-proportion and Fisher's exact tests on the Research licence, weighting and trend analysis are stated, sentiment analysis tags open text into themes with an Excel export, and reports export to SPSS, PDF, PowerPoint and Excel with shareable report links and real-time dashboards. I found no public information on benchmark data or an analytics API that would make every analysis reproducible, so the top level is not reached. 2 12 13
The Skeptic
Cross-tabulation is documented with real statistics — Pearson's Chi-Square with p-value and degrees of freedom, column proportions and Fisher's exact test on the Research license — alongside weighting, trend, correlation and TURF analysis, SPSS, PowerPoint and PDF exports, and a sentiment feature that tags open-ends into themes with an Excel download; the fine print is English-only sentiment and a per-response credit charge. We found no public information on dashboards with per-audience permissions, R exports, benchmarks, or an analytics API that makes analyses reproducible. 2 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 standard DPA covers all customers, respondents get a rights-request form, can see every survey they took, download their data, and be forgotten at response, survey or account level including cookies, and a named Privacy Compliance Officer is published. Retention is indefinite while the account is active and paid with deletion 30 days after cancellation, backups purge in 7 days, and EU-server users get GDPR settings on by default with a privacy link in the survey footer; IP addresses are collected with responses, however, and we found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops them, on encryption of responses in transit and at rest, or on tracking cookies being off by default. 4 5 6 7 15
The Operations Manager
A standard processor agreement exists for all customers with agreements behind every company that processes the data, respondents get a rights request form, can download their own data as PDF and request deletion down to a single response or their whole footprint including cookies, and a named privacy compliance officer plus a selectable EU supervisory authority are published. Retention is stated as indefinite while the account is active rather than automatic deletion periods, and I found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses or on field-level encryption of answers. 4 15 6 14 5
The HR Lead
The respondent-rights machinery is genuinely strong: a standard processor agreement for all customers, GDPR settings with a privacy-and-data-security link in every survey footer, respondents able to see the surveys they took, download their own data and request deletion at individual response level or across all responses, a named Privacy Compliance Officer, and all content deleted on termination. But my works council would stop at the anonymity question: the captured pages state IP addresses may be collected and are included in downloads, and we found no public information on an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, on automatic retention periods (retention runs indefinitely while the account is active and paid), or on encryption of the responses themselves — the encryption statement we found covers order forms. 4 6 7 15
The Academic Researcher
The GDPR machinery is genuinely built for my kind of study: a standard processor agreement for all customers, GDPR compliance switched on by default for EU-server accounts, a privacy and data security link in the survey footer, default research-use language (research purposes only, no commercial sale, no marketing contact), per-respondent access via a PDF of their own data, and erasure down to a single response or the whole account including cookies. A named Privacy Compliance Officer and the Dutch DPA as lead supervisory authority are published, and retention is documented as indefinite while the account is active with a 30-day grace period after cancellation; we found no public information on encryption of responses at rest, field-level masking, or an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses — the privacy policy states IP addresses may be collected. 4 15 6 5 14
The Data Protection Officer
A standard data processing agreement exists for all customers, the vendor states it has DPAs with every company processing survey data, a Privacy Compliance Officer is named, respondents get a rights-request form, can download their own collected data as PDF, and deletion works at individual-response level. Against that, retention is indefinite while the account is active and paid, with removal only after a 30-day grace period following cancellation — no automatic, customer-set deletion. The privacy policy states IP addresses may be collected, and I found no public information on an anonymous mode that does not store them, on field-level masking of sensitive answers, or on forms that set no tracking cookies by default. 4 5 6 15
The Skeptic
The deletion machinery is genuinely there: respondents get a footer link to see every survey they took, download their data, and request deletion down to a single response or a full forget including cookies; a standard processor agreement covers all customers, a Privacy Compliance Officer is named, and retention after cancellation is stated. But GDPR compliance is an on/off checkbox — on by default only for EU-server users, all other datacenter users must turn it on by choice — the pages document that IP addresses may be collected and ship in downloadable metadata, and encryption is stated only for credit-card data on order forms. We found no public information on an anonymous mode that does not store IP addresses, field-level encryption, or tracking-cookie controls. 4 5 6 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 servers with GDPR compliance on by default, region-specific data centres, SAML single sign-on, user roles with teams, system audit logs (Research Edition only) and a 99.5% uptime commitment for enterprise clients are all published. Responses export to Excel, SPSS, PDF and JSON; the terms prohibit removing the 'Powered by QuestionPro' footer, and we found no public information on self-hosting, per-workspace region selection, user provisioning, or a portable export of the forms themselves. 2 4 6 7 17
The Operations Manager
EU servers are referenced with GDPR compliance switched on by default for them, region-specific data centres are listed as a feature, teams get user roles and permissions, SAML single sign-on is offered, branded subdomains are available, and responses export in raw form plus PDF, JSON, Excel and SPSS alongside an API. The system audit log is reserved for the research licence, and the terms prohibit removing the "Powered by QuestionPro" footer, which cuts against white-labelling. 2 4 17 7
The HR Lead
EU servers are referenced with GDPR compliance on by default for accounts there, alongside region-specific data centers, SAML single sign-on, user roles and teams, system audit logs on the Research Edition, response exports in several formats through an API, and a 99.5% uptime commitment for Enterprise clients with a service-credit remedy. The terms prohibit removing the 'Powered by QuestionPro' footer. We found no public information on a self-hosted edition, user provisioning, granular per-form permissions, or an export of the forms themselves for migration. 2 4 7 17
The Academic Researcher
SAML single sign-on, user roles with teams, system audit logs on the Research Edition, a branded subdomain, several export formats alongside an API, and EU servers referenced on the GDPR page give a workable team setup. The terms however prohibit removing the "Powered by QuestionPro" footer, which rules out full white-labelling for a faculty deployment, and we found no public information on self-hosting, choosing the data region per account, or user provisioning. 2 17 4 7
The Data Protection Officer
EU servers are referenced for GDPR defaults, region-specific data centres are offered, user roles, teams and SAML single sign-on are stated, responses export to Excel, SPSS, PDF and JSON, and there is a 99.5 percent uptime commitment for enterprise clients. However, the system audit log sits only on the Research Edition, the terms prohibit removing the "Powered by QuestionPro" footer, and I found no public information on choosing an EU region per account, self-hosting, or exporting form structures themselves. A solid middle score from me, not the top. 2 4 17 7
The Skeptic
Region-specific data centers and an EU-server deployment are named, along with team roles, SAML single sign-on, system audit logs on the Research Edition only, an API and exports in several formats. The terms cut the other way: removing the 'Powered by QuestionPro' footer is prohibited, exporting Your Content before termination is solely the customer's job, and the captured pages give different figures for how soon after cancellation data is removed. We found no public information on selecting EU-only hosting per account, granular per-form roles, user provisioning, or white-labelling. 2 4 7 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
The contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon under Washington state law, and EU servers, a Dutch lead supervisory authority that EU users can select, and EU-US, UK and Swiss Data Privacy Framework certifications are published. A standard DPA and subprocessor DPAs exist in aggregate, but we found no public information naming the hosting infrastructure, the subprocessors and their locations, European ownership, or an EU contracting entity or representative. 4 5 6 7
The Operations Manager
The contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon under Washington state law with arbitration in San Francisco, and while a privacy policy, a standard data processing agreement and an EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework certification exist, no subprocessors are named and I found no confirmation of where responses are hosted or who owns the company. An EU server option is referenced on the GDPR page, so parts of the chain look European, but nothing about ownership or the full processing chain is documented. 7 6 4 5
The HR Lead
The contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon, governed by Washington state law, with the FTC overseeing its Data Privacy Framework commitments — no EU entity or representative appears on the captured pages. Processor agreements are said to exist with all data processors including cloud infrastructure, but none of the hosting infrastructure or subprocessors is named, and while EU servers are referenced the vendor's own pages do not confirm where a given account's responses sit. For a works-council review in Germany I cannot trace this chain end to end, even with ISO 27001 and Data Privacy Framework certification stated. 7 4 6 5
The Academic Researcher
The contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon under Washington state law with JAMS arbitration in San Francisco, and we found no public information naming the hosting infrastructure, the subprocessor chain, or any EU contracting entity or representative. A standard data processing agreement, ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 statements, EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework certification, the Dutch DPA as lead supervisory authority, and references to EU servers exist, but the chain a European ethics board must assess end to end is not documented. 7 4 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon, under Washington state law with JAMS arbitration in San Francisco and FTC oversight of its Data Privacy Framework certifications — the chain is American end to end as far as the captured pages show. A standard DPA and a privacy policy are published and ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 audits are stated, but hosting location is not confirmed on the vendor's own pages and subprocessors appear only as categories such as cloud infrastructure and service centres, unnamed. Without an EU entity or representative, a named hosting location and a subprocessor list with locations, I could not sign this off for anything sensitive. 4 5 6 7
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is QuestionPro, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon under Washington state law with San Francisco arbitration, and its transfer story is the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework under FTC jurisdiction — not a European entity or representative. Hosting is QuestionPro-owned servers co-located at off-site data centers with no location stated, and subprocessors are acknowledged by category such as cloud infrastructure management and service centers, with processor agreements but no named list. A standard DPA and ISO 27001 exist, which is more than nothing; where the responses physically live, we found no public confirmation. 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
The free tier (1 user, 200 responses per survey), Advanced at $99 per user / per month billed annually with 25,000 responses per year, and Team Edition at $83 per user / per month billed annually with five-plus users and 100K responses per year are public, along with auto-renewal, a 13.6% renewal price increase, non-refundable fees and 30-day non-renewal notice. Research Edition is quote-only with custom response pricing, sentiment analysis is metered at 0.05 credits per response with no published money price for a credit, and system audit logs sit behind the top license — so a full annual cost cannot be computed from public pages alone. 2 3 7 8 13 17
The Operations Manager
The free tier (one user, 200 responses per survey), Advanced at "$99 per user / per month Billed annually" with "25K Responses per year", and Team Edition at "$83 per user / per month Billed annually" with "100K Responses per year" are public with their limits, and the terms disclose auto-renewal, a 13.6 percent renewal re-pricing, a 30-day non-renewal notice and non-refundable fees. The research suite is "Custom Response pricing" on contact, sentiment analysis runs on a credit wallet at 0.05 credits per response, and I found no public pricing for the intermediate licences or for what happens above the response limits. 3 7 13 17
The HR Lead
Two paid plans are public with their limits — Advanced at $99 per user / per month Billed annually with 25,000 responses per year, Team Edition at $83 per user / per month Billed annually with 100,000 responses per year — next to a free tier of one user and 200 responses per survey, and the terms spell out auto-renewal, a 13.6% renewal repricing, 30-day non-renewal notice and non-refundable fees. Sentiment analysis is priced at 0.05 credits per response. The Research Edition — where the audit logs and statistical options live — is custom quote only, and we found no public information on VAT treatment, overage response prices or a plan comparison table. 3 7 13 2
The Academic Researcher
The free tier (1 user, 200 responses per survey) and two paid plans are public — "$99 per user / per month Billed annually" for Advanced with 25K responses per year and "$83 per user / per month Billed annually" for Team Edition with 100K — and the terms state billing in advance, automatic renewal re-priced at a 13.6% annual increase, non-refundability, and 30 days' notice for non-renewal. But the Research Edition my faculty would need is custom-quote only, academic pricing is contact-us, and we found no public information on VAT treatment or overage response pricing (sentiment analysis credits at 0.05 credits per response are an exception). 3 7 13 8
The Data Protection Officer
Two paid plans are priced publicly with their limits — Advanced at "$99 per user / per month Billed annually" with "25K Responses per year" and Team Edition at "$83 per user / per month Billed annually" with "100K Responses per year" — the free tier's one user and 200 responses per survey are clear, and sentiment credits cost 0.05 per response. But the Research Edition is contact-us with custom response pricing, I found no public prices for the Professional and Corporate plans named in the terms, and no public information on extra-response or overage prices, VAT treatment, or what single sign-on and EU hosting cost. Renewals reprice at a published 13.6 percent annual increase with a 30-day non-renewal notice, which is at least transparent. 3 7 13
The Skeptic
Three tiers carry public prices and limits — a free tier at 1 user and 200 responses per survey, Advanced at $99 per user / per month Billed annually with 25K responses per year, Team Edition at $83 per user / per month Billed annually — but the Research Suite is a custom quote, Professional and Corporate appear in the terms without public prices, and sentiment analysis runs on wallet credits at 0.05 credits per response. Renewal terms are at least disclosed: auto-renewal, 30-day notice, non-refundable fees and a 13.6% annual re-pricing on renewal. We found no public information on overage or extra-response prices, VAT treatment, or what single sign-on and EU hosting cost. 3 7 13 17
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about QuestionPro
Is QuestionPro European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies QuestionPro as Rest of world.
Where does QuestionPro store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
Does QuestionPro have a free plan?
Yes. QuestionPro has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to QuestionPro?
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: QuestionPro 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Hosting location. The EU region is confirmed to exist, but no excerpt states where the default hosting sits — the pricing page lists a "Global Data center" on lower tiers and "Regional Data centers" only on Team/Research plans, and the security page only names unnamed "SOC 2 Data Centers".
- 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.
- 28 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
- 8 pricing 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 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
- 2 support 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 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
- 1 integrations 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
- 2 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.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing page www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 GDPR page www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Security page www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy policy www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Terms of service www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Form & survey building — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Form & survey building — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Distribution, response collection & workflows — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Survey analysis & reporting — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Consent, GDPR & respondent data — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 17 Hosting choice, teams & portability — found from sitemap www.questionpro.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →