Forms & Surveys

QuestionPro

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 QuestionPro, Inc. · www.questionpro.com

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

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

Method and versions

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

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

Link to this page

HTML

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

Markdown

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

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

QuestionPro 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	4.5 of 5	4.5 of 5
Distribution, response collection & workflows	3.5 of 5	4 of 5
Survey analysis & reporting	4 of 5	4 of 5
Consent, GDPR & respondent data	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
Hosting choice, teams & portability	3.5 of 5	3 of 5
European sovereignty	2 of 5	2 of 5
Pricing transparency	3 of 5	2.5 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

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

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

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

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

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

Report an error

Consent, GDPR & respondent data

How this is scored

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

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

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

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

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 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report an error

The Academic Researcher

The 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Legal entity	Not determined ⚠ unverified	—	uncited Report an error
Hosting location	Not determined ⚠ unverified	—	uncited Report an error
Hosting options	Not determined	—	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

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

Sources (17)

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

1 Vendor homepage www.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 →