Business Instant Messaging
Beekeeper
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Beekeeper AG · www.beekeeper.io
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Beekeeper AG is a mobile-first business instant messaging product for frontline teams — no corporate email required — now part of LumApps. Its only high marks come on integrations, where scores run 2 to 4 with four judges at 4, crediting native connectors for Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors and UKG plus a claimed 500+ more; even there, judges found no public information on a documented API, webhooks or provisioning, so the catalogue reads as vendor-maintained rather than buildable. The remaining criteria sit low: encryption and access, governance and discovery and sovereignty each scored 1, with 'secure mobile login' the only security language on the pages and no public information on retention, export, audit logs, hosting jurisdiction or subprocessors; messaging core runs 1–2; deployment control runs 0–1, its sole custody statement covering the LumApps merger, not an exit. The widest spread is integrations (2 to 4), where the works-council advocate's 2 rests on doubt that the chat can be extended without a partner agreement, while the higher scores credit the breadth of the named catalogue. No public prices appear on the pages.
Speaks for it
- Integration scores run 2 to 4 with four judges at 4, on native connectors for Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors and UKG plus a claimed 500+ more
- Targeted updates by role, shift or location are confirmed on the vendor's page
- Mobile-first access requires no corporate email, matching frontline deployment
- Automated shift swaps, approvals, onboarding steps and compliance reminders are confirmed features
- Digital checklists, forms, incident reports and task assignments run from mobile devices in real time
Held against it
- Encryption and access scored 1, with 'secure mobile login' the only security statement on the pages
- Governance and discovery scored 1; judges found no public information on retention policy, discovery export or an audit log
- Deployment control scored 0–1; the sole custody statement — 'your login, your data, and your support team stay the same' — addresses the LumApps merger, not an exit
- Sovereignty scored 1, with no sovereignty attributes on record and no public information on hosting location or subprocessors
- Engagement and task-completion analytics dashboards are marketed with no public information on an organisation-wide off switch
Best for
- You run frontline teams in manufacturing, retail or healthcare whose workers have no corporate email — the product is mobile-first and requires none
- You already run Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors or UKG and want native connectors without custom development
- You mainly need targeted updates by role, shift or location plus automated shift swaps, approvals and compliance reminders
- You train a multilingual workforce — training and compliance courses are delivered in 200+ languages
Avoid if
- Your works council must vet monitoring capabilities before rollout — engagement and task-completion analytics dashboards are a confirmed feature of the product
- You need documented security, retention and audit mechanisms before signing — the published material offers only a 'secure mobile login'
- You want self-hosting or customer custody of the archive — the pages describe a vendor-operated cloud service whose only custody statement covers the LumApps merger
- You need product stability above all — a unified product experience rolls out in phases over the next 12 to 18 months following the acquisition
The scores
Channels, threads & search
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The daily surface: channel model, threading, mentions, files, and whether search can find a decision made eighteen months ago.
0 — Flat group chats with no threads; search covers recent messages only, and history is capped.
3 — Channels and direct messages with basic search, but threading is awkward or absent and file handling is a plain attachment list.
5 — Public and private channels, real threads, mentions and reactions, file sharing with previews, and full-text search across the whole history.
8 — Cross-organisation or guest channels with clear boundaries, message editing history, pinned and saved items, search with filters by channel, person and date, and a documented history limit or none at all.
10 — The archive is a working knowledge base: search that ranks well across years, threads that stay readable, channel lifecycle management (archive, rename, merge) without losing history, and export of a conversation in a form a human can read.
The Team Lead
The captured page sells targeted updates by role, shift, or location and a mobile-first communication home, but we found no public information on channels, threading, mentions, file handling, or any search over history — the exact things my team needs to find a decision made eighteen months ago. 1
The Security Officer
The public pages evidence mobile messaging with targeted updates by role, shift and location, but I found no public information on threads, mentions, file previews, or a search that reaches back through history. For an archive that must answer a question asked eighteen months later, nothing captured evidences that capability. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page sells a mobile-first communication home for frontline teams, with targeted updates by role, shift or location and no corporate email required. We found no public information on channels, threads, mentions, search over history, or any history limit; an archive whose searchability is undocumented cannot be treated as a record of who spoke to whom. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The captured page shows a mobile-first communication product with targeted updates by role, shift and location, but we found no public information on channel structure, threading, message editing history, or search across the archive. I cannot confirm from public evidence that a decision made eighteen months ago can be found again. 1
The Platform Engineer
The captured page sells broadcasts and task streams — targeted updates by role, shift, or location — and I found no public information on channels, threads, mentions, message search, history limits, or a conversation a human could export and read. For finding a decision made eighteen months ago, there is nothing in the evidence to rely on. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages confirm group communication and targeted updates by role, shift, or location, but we found no public information on the channel model, threading, mentions, file handling, message search, or any history limit. The history cap I read for and the search that would find a decision made eighteen months ago are simply not addressed anywhere published. 1
Encryption & access control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What is encrypted and against whom, plus who can reach which room. Judged on documented mechanism, since "encrypted" in this category usually means the vendor holds the keys.
0 — Transport encryption only, undocumented; no role model beyond admin, guests indistinguishable from members.
3 — TLS and encryption at rest with vendor-held keys, basic roles, and guest access that mostly works.
5 — The above plus configurable roles per channel, SSO, guest accounts with scoped visibility, and a clear statement of what the vendor can read.
8 — Optional end-to-end encryption for direct messages or private rooms with the trade-offs named, device verification, session management an admin can revoke, and documented key handling.
10 — End-to-end encryption as a first-class mode — documented or open cryptography, cross-device key management that ordinary users survive, identity verification, and the vendor stating plainly what it cannot decrypt.
The Team Lead
The only security statement in the captured material is "secure mobile login"; we found no public information on encryption in transit or at rest, on roles or SSO, on guest access, or on what the vendor can read. 1
The Security Officer
The only security statement I found is 'secure mobile login', which says nothing about message encryption or key custody. I found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, end-to-end encryption, device verification, admin-revocable sessions, per-channel roles, SSO or guest scoping — and no plain statement of what the vendor itself can read. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The single security statement on the page is a marketing phrase, secure mobile login. We found no public information on encryption at rest or in transit, key handling, configurable roles, guest accounts with scoped visibility, or a plain statement of what the vendor can read. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The only security language on record is a "secure mobile login"; we found no public information on encryption at rest or in transit, key handling, SSO, or a role model beyond targeting updates by role and shift. That is marketing language, not a documented mechanism I can put in a risk assessment. 1
The Platform Engineer
The only access-related statement is a secure mobile login; I found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, key handling, per-space roles, SSO, or how guest visibility is scoped. Judged on documented mechanism, I could find no mechanism documented. 1
The Skeptic
'Secure mobile login' is the only access-related statement on the pages; we found no public information on encryption at rest or in transit, key handling, single sign-on, per-channel roles, or guest accounts with scoped visibility. An adjective is not a mechanism, and I score on the mechanism. 1
Retention, discovery & co-determination
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The archive as a legal object: retention policies, export for discovery, audit, and the monitoring features a works council will ask to have switched off.
0 — No retention policy, no export beyond a manual copy, no audit log, and presence or activity analytics that cannot be disabled.
3 — Manual export of some data and a global history limit, but no per-channel retention, no audit log and no admin control over analytics.
5 — Configurable retention per channel or workspace, admin export in a documented format, an audit log of administrative actions, and status or presence that a user can control.
8 — Legal-hold and eDiscovery export including edits and deletions, retention executed per policy and evidenced, full admin audit trail, and activity analytics switchable off organisation-wide.
10 — Built to pass a works agreement and a subpoena on the same day: granular retention with documented deletion, discovery export a lawyer can use, complete audit, and no individual-level productivity scoring anywhere in the product.
The Team Lead
Analytics dashboards for engagement, task completion, communication reach and workflow performance are documented, and we found no public information on any organisation-wide switch for them — the first thing a works council will ask about. We also found no public information on retention policies, export for discovery, or an audit trail, though the compliance reminders and incident reports show some compliance orientation. 1
The Security Officer
Engagement and task-completion analytics dashboards are advertised, which is precisely the monitoring a works council will ask about, and I found no public information on whether they can be switched off organisation-wide. I also found no public information on retention policies, export formats for discovery, audit logs or legal hold. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor markets analytics dashboards for engagement, task completion, communication reach and workflow performance, and we found no public information on a switch to disable them organisation-wide or on whether they reach individual employees. We found no public information on retention policy, discovery export, an audit trail, or presence a person controls — exactly the items a works agreement has to see in writing before anything is switched on. 1
The Compliance Counsel
Retention policy, legal hold, discovery export and an administrative audit log are absent from the captured page entirely; we found no public information on any of them. What is prominently evidenced instead is engagement and task-completion analytics across every location, with no public information on whether those can be switched off — the exact feature a works council will ask about. 1
The Platform Engineer
I found no public information on retention policies, discovery export, or an audit log of administrative actions. What the page does show is analytics dashboards for engagement, task completion and communication reach, with no public information on an organisation-wide off switch — the first thing a works council will ask me to produce. 1
The Skeptic
Dashboards tracking engagement, task completion and communication reach across every location are confirmed as a feature, and we found no public information on an organisation-wide switch for them, on retention policies, on admin export in a documented format, or on an audit log. A works council will find what gets measured here and no public information on what can be turned off. 1
Deployment & data custody
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the customer can hold their own archive: self-hosting, private cloud, open source, federation, and what an exit actually looks like.
0 — Cloud-only, proprietary, with export limited to a partial archive.
3 — Cloud-only, but with a documented full export in an open-ish format.
5 — A private-cloud or dedicated-instance option, or a self-hosted edition that lags the cloud significantly; full export documented.
8 — A genuine self-hosted edition close to feature parity, or open-source core with a documented upgrade path, plus complete export including files and metadata.
10 — Custody is the customer's: open-source or source-available server, self-hosting supported as a first-class deployment, open protocol or federation, and a migration path in and out that the vendor documents rather than resists.
The Team Lead
We found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud option, open source, federation, or a documented export of the archive; the only custody statement is "Your login, your data, and your support team stay the same" during the phased LumApps unification, which says nothing about a customer-held archive or an exit. 1
The Security Officer
The captured pages present a cloud-delivered mobile service, and I found no public information on self-hosting, a private-instance option, open-source components, or a documented export and exit path for the archive. The LumApps acquisition message promises that data stays the same but names no custody options. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only custody-related statement is an acquisition note that your login, your data and your support team stay the same now that Beekeeper is part of LumApps. We found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud or dedicated instance, open source, or a documented export, so what an exit looks like is unstated. 1
The Compliance Counsel
We found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud option, open source, or any documented export format, so custody of the archive appears to sit wholly with the vendor. The only continuity commitment on record concerns the LumApps acquisition — "your login, your data, and your support team stay the same" — which addresses the merger, not an exit. 1
The Platform Engineer
I would be the one running this, and I found no public information on self-hosting, source availability, export tooling, federation, or any open protocol — the page describes a vendor-operated cloud service and nothing else. The closest statement is a continuity promise that login, data and support stay the same through a twelve-to-eighteen-month product unification after the LumApps acquisition, which speaks to service continuity, not customer custody of the archive. 1
The Skeptic
The pages describe a hosted, login-based service and promise 'your login, your data, and your support team stay the same' after the LumApps acquisition, but we found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud or open-source edition, federation, or what a full export on exit would contain. The 12-to-18-month unified-product roadmap makes the exit question sharper, not softer. 1
Integrations & extensibility
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Bots, webhooks, app framework, identity — whether the chat becomes the place work is noticed, and whether that is buildable without a partner agreement.
0 — No API, no webhooks, no bots.
3 — Incoming webhooks and a handful of native integrations; no bot framework, no documented limits.
5 — Documented REST API, incoming and outgoing webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model, and SSO.
8 — A proper app framework with interactive components, event subscriptions with retries, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits and a sandbox.
10 — A platform: versioned API with a deprecation policy, an app directory or plugin system with permissions a customer can audit, and integrations the vendor maintains rather than lists.
The Team Lead
This is the one place with substance: native integrations with Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors, UKG and 500+ more are named, which is a real catalogue of workforce systems. But we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model, or SCIM provisioning, so it stays a list rather than something a team can build on. 1
The Security Officer
Five hundred-plus native integrations are claimed, with Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors and UKG named — a genuine ecosystem around workforce systems. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, a bot or app framework, SSO, SCIM provisioning or rate limits, which keeps this short of a developer-facing platform. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Native integrations are confirmed with Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors and UKG, and 500+ more are claimed. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, a bot account model or provisioning, so a customer cannot judge from public pages whether the chat can be extended without a partner agreement. 1
The Compliance Counsel
Named native integrations with Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors and UKG, with a stated total of 500+, are genuinely relevant to frontline operations and identity systems. We found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, a bot account model, SCIM provisioning or rate limits, so nothing shows the platform is buildable without a partner agreement. 1
The Platform Engineer
A native catalogue naming Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors and UKG, with 500+ more claimed, is genuinely useful for the frontline identity and ITSM chain. But I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, a bot account model, rate limits, or a plugin system whose permissions a customer could audit — so this reads as a vendor-maintained list rather than a platform I can build on without a partner agreement. 1
The Skeptic
Native integrations with Workday, ServiceNow, SAP SuccessFactors, UKG and a claimed 500+ more are stated, which is more than a handful; we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, a bot framework, SCIM provisioning, or rate limits. The catalogue is real on paper; the buildability of anything not in it goes unaddressed. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the archive and its metadata live, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch it. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU data residency offered for message content while metadata, search indexes or support tooling remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — notifications, AI features, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a self-hosted option that removes the question.
The Team Lead
We found no public information on where the archive and its metadata are hosted, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction beyond the "AG" in the vendor name, on subprocessors, or on any certification, and the acquisition by LumApps makes the custody chain harder to pin down rather than easier. 1
The Security Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the subprocessor list and any certification are all unstated in the public pages. For an archive whose metadata I worry about as much as its content, I found no public information on where any of it is processed. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting vendor is named as Beekeeper AG, now part of LumApps, and no sovereignty attributes are on record. We found no public information on where the archive and its metadata are hosted, the jurisdiction of the contracting entity, or a single named subprocessor — and an acquisition places a second vendor into the chain with no stated processing locations. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The sovereignty attributes on record are empty: no hosting location, no subprocessor list, no certification, and the contracting entity after the acquisition is unstated. The only Europe-adjacent signal is the corporate form in the vendor's own name; we found no public information on anything a due-diligence would need. 1
The Platform Engineer
I found no public information on hosting jurisdiction, subprocessors, certifications, or where the contracting entity sits — and the acquisition into LumApps adds a second corporate parent whose obligations are unstated. For a buyer who wants the archive and its metadata in a known place, the captured page leaves the entire question open. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured pages state neither where the archive and its metadata are hosted nor where the contracting entity sits, name no subprocessors, and report only that Beekeeper 'is now part of LumApps' without a location. For a buyer who asks these questions first, every one of them is met with no public information. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual invoice for their headcount — including the retention, compliance and guest features they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-user headline exists, but the tier where retention control, SSO or compliance export begins is unstated.
5 — Per-user prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed capability (unlimited history, SSO, eDiscovery) sits in an unpriced enterprise tier.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with per-user maths, history and storage limits, feature boundaries, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; self-hosted licensing priced too where offered.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given headcount and deployment choice, including guest users, storage and any per-instance licence.
The Team Lead
The captured pages show no prices at all: we found no public information on per-user figures, billing periods, tier boundaries, or guest treatment, so an annual invoice for a given headcount is not computable from what is published. 1
The Security Officer
I found no public prices at all — no per-user figures, tier boundaries, billing period, VAT treatment, guest pricing or self-hosted licensing. A buyer cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from what was captured. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on pricing at all: no per-user price, no tiers, no billing period, no VAT treatment, and no statement of where history, retention or compliance capabilities would begin. A buyer cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from the captured page. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The captured page gives no price at all: no per-user figure, no tier names, no billing period, no VAT treatment. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from public information, and every tier appears to be a sales conversation. 1
The Platform Engineer
I found no public prices at all — no per-user figure, no tier boundaries, no billing period, no VAT treatment, and no statement of where retention or compliance features begin. Not one line of an annual invoice can be computed from what was captured. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public prices at all — no per-user figure, no tier names, no billing period, no guest or storage terms, no VAT treatment. A buyer cannot compute any annual invoice for any headcount from what is published, and that is the bottom of the scale. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 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 | Incorporated in FR | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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 (beekeeper.io, legal.lumapps.com/legal/mentions-legales). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (beekeeper.io, legal.lumapps.com/legal/mentions-legales). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. 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 (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.beekeeper.io Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage legal.lumapps.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →