Business Instant Messaging
Chanty
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Chanty · chanty.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.
Chanty at a glance
- Vendor
- Chanty
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Chanty 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Chanty is a cloud workspace for business chat where people and AI agents work side by side, and the bench's scoring divides between its access layer and its foundations. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Chanty is a cloud workspace for business chat where people and AI agents work side by side, and the bench's scoring divides between its access layer and its foundations. The strongest criterion is encryption and access, scored 4 with no variation: the pages document TLS 1.2 and above with forward secrecy and AES-128-GCM, storage encryption, invite-only team spaces, one-time-code login and 120+ permission settings, with no public information on end-to-end encryption or key handling. The weakest are sovereignty, scored 1 likewise — AWS hosting in SAS 70 audited data centers with no region stated, and contracting entity, residency and subprocessors unknown — and deployment control at 1 to 2, with no self-hosting or documented export format. Integrations splits the judges, 2 to 4: the compliance counsel credits the native-integration, HRIS-sync and agent-permission claims; the lower marks cite no documented API, webhooks or rate limits. Messaging core and governance and discovery land at 2 to 3 — retention is a single privacy-policy sentence, and the logged audit trail covers AI-agent actions, not administrative ones. Public pricing: a free plan and a demo.
Speaks for it
- Transport and storage security documented in detail — TLS 1.2 and above with forward secrecy and AES-128-GCM, plus file system and storage encryption
- Invite-only team spaces governed by 120+ permission settings covering who can create chats, invite guests, export history or add an AI agent
- External guests such as vendors, contractors and suppliers can be brought in without access to everything
- Any message can be turned into a task in one click
- Any AI model or agent can be plugged in, with per-role interaction levels, human approval before execution and one-click revocation
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 1: AWS hosting in SAS 70 audited data centers with no region stated, and contracting entity, ownership, residency and subprocessors unknown on the captured pages
- Deployment control scored 1 to 2: no public information on self-hosting, a dedicated instance, open source or federation, and history export appears only as a permission with no documented format
- Retention is a single privacy-policy sentence — stored until no longer necessary or the account is deleted — with no per-channel policy, legal hold or eDiscovery export in evidence
- No public information on a documented API, webhooks, bot accounts, single sign-on or rate limits behind the integrations claims
- No per-user price published: a free plan, "No enterprise price tag" and a demo are the only public pricing signals
Best for
- You need an invite-only chat workspace with documented transport and storage encryption and fine-grained permissions over members and external guests
- You want AI agents inside chat under control — per-role interaction levels, human approval before execution, one-click revoke, and a real-time log of every agent action
- Your team lives on quick task creation from messages and guest collaboration, and vendor-held encryption keys are acceptable
Avoid if
- You must place the archive and its metadata in a named region or know your subprocessors — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need custody on your own infrastructure or a documented exit export — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need scheduled retention, legal hold or regulator-readable export — published retention keeps data until no longer necessary or account deletion, with deletion requests allowed up to 30 business days
- You plan to build your own tooling — the documented surface is native integrations, HRIS sync and bring-your-own agents, with no public information on an API, webhooks or SCIM provisioning
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Channels, threads & search | 1.5 of 5 |
| Encryption & access control | 2 of 5 |
| Retention, discovery & co-determination | 1.5 of 5 |
| Deployment & data custody | 0.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & extensibility | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
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
Public and private conversations are confirmed, and one-click task creation from a message is the sort of thing that survives a busy Tuesday. We found no public information on threading, search, message history limits, or how files land in a conversation, so I cannot verify the tool would find last spring's decision. 1 3
The Security Officer
Public and private conversations are confirmed, and external guests can be brought in without seeing everything, which is a fair start. Beyond that I found no public information on threading, mentions, file previews or search — nothing here evidences that a decision made eighteen months ago could ever be found again. History export appears only as a permission someone can be granted, with no documented form. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
Public and private conversations, scoped guest access, and one-click task creation from a message are the surface these pages show. We found no public information on threading, mentions and reactions, file previews, or whether search can find a decision from eighteen months ago beyond a server-side search service being used to manage user data. 1 3
The Compliance Counsel
Public and private conversations, scoped external guests and one-click task creation from a message are documented. We found no public information on threading, the scope and filters of search, message edit history, or exporting a conversation in a form a court or regulator could actually read — and for an archive I may one day have to produce, that silence decides the level. 1 3
The Platform Engineer
Public and private conversations are documented, guests can be invited with a boundary claim, and a message becomes a task in one click — but we found no public information on threading, search across history, message editing, pins, or readable conversation export. The Elasticsearch reference appears only as hosting plumbing on the security page, not as a documented search feature, so the daily surface is half-described. 1 3
The Skeptic
Public and private conversations, scoped guest access and one-click task-from-message are on the captured pages, but we found no public information on threading, mentions, reactions or how search behaves — the Amazon Elasticsearch mention describes hosting infrastructure, not a documented search feature. No history limit is stated in either direction. 1 3
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
Transport security is done properly — TLS 1.2 and above, forward secrecy, AES-128-GCM — alongside encrypted file storage, invite-only team spaces, one-time-code login, and 120-plus permission settings deciding who sees what, with guests that can be scoped away from everything. We found no public information on end-to-end encryption, single sign-on, or device verification, and the 'no one has direct access' claims describe moderation restraint rather than documented cryptography. 1 3
The Security Officer
Transport security is properly documented — TLS 1.2 or above with forward secrecy and AES-128-GCM — alongside storage encryption, invite-only team spaces, one-time-code authentication and over 120 permission settings. But everything points to vendor-held keys: I found no public information on end-to-end encryption, device verification or key handling, and the documented admin power is deprovisioning a user, not revoking their sessions. "No Big Brother is watching you" is a promise about database access, not a plain statement of what the vendor cannot decrypt. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
Transport security is documented concretely — TLS 1.2 and above, forward secrecy, AES-128-GCM — alongside storage encryption, one-time-code authentication, 120+ permission settings and admin deprovisioning. We found no public information on end-to-end encryption, SSO, device verification, or documented key handling, so the keys must be assumed to sit with the vendor. 1 3
The Compliance Counsel
Transport security is documented precisely — TLS 1.2 and above, forward secrecy, AES-128-GCM — alongside storage encryption, one-time-code authentication, admin deprovisioning, and a claimed 120+ permission settings with guests who see only what they are given; the vendor also states no one has direct access to files or messages. We found no public information on end-to-end encryption, key handling, device verification, session revocation or single sign-on, so what is evidenced is credible vendor-held-key security, not verifiable confidentiality. 1 3
The Platform Engineer
The security page documents TLS 1.2 and above with forward secrecy and AES-128-GCM, storage encryption, invite-only team spaces, one-time-code authentication, and a large permission matrix covering guest invites and history export. We found no public information on end-to-end encryption, SSO, device verification, or key handling, and the "no one has direct access to the database" line reads as a statement about access rather than a documented mechanism. 1 3
The Skeptic
TLS 1.2 with forward secrecy and AES-128-GCM, file and storage encryption, invite-only team spaces, one-time-code login and admin deprovisioning are documented, and 120+ permission settings with scoped guests go past basic roles. I read 'No Big Brother is watching you' as a claim about moderation access rather than a statement of what the operator can technically read, and we found no public information on end-to-end encryption, single sign-on or session revocation. 1 3
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
Retention is a privacy-policy sentence — stored until no longer necessary or the account is deleted — with deletion requests allowed up to 30 business days, and the only audit trail evidenced logs AI-agent actions rather than administrator behaviour. We found no public information on configurable retention, a documented discovery export, or whether presence and activity analytics can be switched off. 1 2
The Security Officer
Retention is one global sentence — store until no longer necessary or the account is deleted, with deletion requests processed in up to 30 business days — with no per-channel policy and no evidenced legal hold. The advertised audit trail logs AI agent actions, not administrative ones. History export exists only as a permission setting, and I found no public information on a documented export format, an administrative audit log, or any switch for presence and activity analytics. 1 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Retention as published keeps data until it is no longer necessary or until the account is deleted, with deletion requests processed up to 30 business days — deletion on account closure, not a policy that deletes on schedule, which is exactly what a works council cannot sign. A history-export permission, a mentioned retention regulation and a real-time trail of AI agent actions are the rest; we found no public information on per-channel retention, an audit log of administrative actions, user-controlled presence, or any organisation-wide switch for activity analytics. 1 2 3
The Compliance Counsel
The only retention statement is the privacy policy's store-until-no-longer-necessary-or-account-deleted, the sole audit trail evidenced logs AI-agent actions rather than administrative ones, and permissions do include controlling who exports history — but we found no public information on export format, per-channel retention, legal hold, or capture of edits and deletions. A team-space deletion may take up to 30 business days, which tells a court nothing about what was preserved meanwhile. This is the capability I weigh hardest, and the captured pages do not yet evidence an archive a lawyer could work from. 1 2 3
The Platform Engineer
Retention is a privacy-policy sentence — stored until no longer necessary or account deleted — plus team-space deletion that can take up to 30 business days, rather than an admin-configurable policy; history export exists as a permission setting and agent actions get a real-time trail. We found no public information on an administrative audit log, per-channel retention, legal hold or eDiscovery export, or any control over presence and activity analytics. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Retention is one global sentence — stored until no longer necessary or account deleted — with 'data retention regulation' listed as a security feature and no per-channel policy in evidence; the headline audit trail logs AI agent actions, not administrative ones, and history export appears only as a permission setting with no documented format. We found no public information on legal hold, eDiscovery export, or switching off activity analytics. 1 2 3
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
The captured pages place all data on the vendor's AWS infrastructure with synchronous replication and cross-datacentre snapshots, and an ownership slogan is not custody. We found no public information on self-hosting, a dedicated-instance option, federation, or a documented full export format. 1 3
The Security Officer
The only evidenced deployment is the vendor's cloud on AWS, with synchronous replication and snapshots held in a separate data center — good resilience, but custody stays theirs. I found no public information on a self-hosted edition, dedicated instances, open source, federation, or a documented exit export format. "Your data belongs to you. End of story." is a slogan, not custody. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
Hosting sits on Amazon Web Services with synchronous replication and snapshots in a separate data center, and the vendor says the data belongs to the customer. We found no public information on a self-hosted edition, a private-cloud option, federation, or a documented full export with files and metadata — custody of the archive stays with the vendor's cloud. 1 3
The Compliance Counsel
Hosting is on AWS with synchronous replication and snapshots in a separate data centre, and the customer is told the data belongs to them, but we found no public information on self-hosting, a dedicated or private instance, open source, or a documented export and migration path on exit. Custody stays with the vendor; the only documented exit is a deletion request. 1 2 3
The Platform Engineer
Hosting is AWS EC2, S3 and Elasticsearch with a 99.9% EC2 SLA — a rented cloud, and the customer holds no keys: we found no public information on a self-hosted edition, open-source or source-available licensing, a dedicated instance, or federation. The exit story is a data-ownership slogan plus an export-history permission whose format is undocumented on the captured pages, so custody is not the customer's. 1 3
The Skeptic
The service runs on Amazon Web Services with synchronous replication and snapshots in a separate data centre, and we found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud edition, open source or federation. Export surfaces as a permission over who can export history, with format and scope undocumented — 'Your data belongs to you' is a slogan, not a custody mechanism. 1 3
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
There is a dedicated integrations page, HRIS sync with org-chart mirroring, and a bring-your-own-agent model with per-role interaction levels, human approval and one-click revocation — a real bot story, though agent-shaped. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, slash commands, or rate limits, which is what a team needs before wiring its tools in. 1
The Security Officer
A dedicated integrations page with third-party software and HRIS sync is confirmed, and the agent story — bring any AI model or agent, set per-role interaction levels, revoke in one click — is genuine extensibility at the product level. But I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, bot accounts, single sign-on or rate limits, so none of it is buildable on published evidence. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A dedicated integrations page and the ability to bring any AI model or agent — with per-role interaction levels and one-click revocation — are shown. We found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model, SCIM provisioning, or rate limits, so buildability without a partner agreement cannot be assessed. 1
The Compliance Counsel
Native integrations, HRIS sync and a bring-any-AI-agent model with per-role interaction levels, human approval and one-click revoke are claimed on the vendor's pages. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, rate limits, SCIM provisioning or a sandbox, so I cannot verify how buildable — or how governable — the extensibility actually is. 1
The Platform Engineer
A dedicated integrations page, HRIS sync, and bring-your-own AI agents with per-role interaction levels and one-click revoke are the visible surface, and the agent permission model is a genuinely interesting idea. But we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, bot accounts, SCIM provisioning, rate limits or a sandbox, so I cannot tell whether any of this is buildable without a partner agreement. 1
The Skeptic
A dedicated integrations page promises 'seamless integrations with your favorite software', HRIS sync and plugging in any AI model or agent, but we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model or rate limits. The documented login method is one-time codes or salted passwords, and we found no public information on single sign-on. 1 3
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
The only custody facts are AWS services (EC2, S3, Amazon Elasticsearch) in SAS 70-audited data centres, with no region named. We found no public information on the contracting entity, EU data residency, or a subprocessor list, so I cannot answer a works council's first question about where the archive and its metadata live. 3
The Security Officer
Hosting sits on AWS in SAS 70 audited data centers, but the region is never stated, and the contracting entity, ownership and subprocessor list are all unknown from the captured pages. For a buyer who cares where the archive and its metadata live, nothing here is evidenced as European; the audit standard cited is a retired American one, which does not help. 3
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages name AWS as host and SAS 70 audited data centers, but no region, and the legal entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessor picture is unknown from these pages. We found no public information placing the archive, its metadata or the contracting entity in Europe. 3
The Compliance Counsel
The captured pages name AWS as host but state no region, and we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the vendor's ownership, or a published subprocessor list. For an archive that may be subject to European process, nothing here lets me say where the data or the counterparty sits. 3
The Platform Engineer
Hosting is named as AWS with SAS 70 audited data centers but no region stated, and we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, European data residency, or any subprocessor list. For a buyer weighing sovereignty, nothing on the captured pages is verifiably European. 3
The Skeptic
Hosting is Amazon Web Services in 'secure, SAS 70 audited data centers' with no region named, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership and subprocessor list are unconfirmed on the captured pages. We found no public information placing message content, metadata or search indexes in the EU, or naming any safeguard for the US cloud provider in the chain. 1 3
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
A free plan is named — "no enterprise price tag" — and beyond that the public pages offer a demo button. We found no public information on per-user prices, tier boundaries, billing periods, or what retention and guest features cost, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 1
The Security Officer
The only public price is the free plan, advertised with "No enterprise price tag", plus a demo. I found no public information on per-user prices, billing periods, history or storage limits, or where retention, single sign-on or compliance capabilities begin, so no annual invoice can be computed from these pages for any headcount. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A free plan with 'no enterprise price tag' and a demo booking are all that is priced in public view. We found no public information on per-user prices, which tier history export or retention control begins in, billing period, or VAT treatment — a council cannot compute the annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Compliance Counsel
A free plan is public and the vendor promises "No enterprise price tag", but we found no public information on any paid per-user price, billing period, storage or history limits, where retention and compliance features sit, or VAT treatment. Booking a demo is the only route shown to those answers, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from the pages alone. 1
The Platform Engineer
A free plan is named and a demo can be booked, but we found no public information on per-user prices, billing periods, tier boundaries, storage or history limits, or where retention and compliance features begin. The annual invoice is not computable from public pages, and every paid tier appears to be a sales conversation. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing signals are a free plan, 'No enterprise price tag' and a 'Book a Demo' button — no per-user figures, no paid tier names, no billing period or VAT treatment, and we found no public information on where single sign-on, retention or export land in a tier. A buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from what is public. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Chanty
Is Chanty European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Chanty is based.
Where does Chanty store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Chanty have a free plan?
Yes. Chanty has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Chanty?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Element (3.5/5), Mattermost (3.5/5) and Stackfield (3/5) highest among the other 19 Business Instant Messaging 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 Element (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Chanty alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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 residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 4 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
- 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
- 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 (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page chanty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.chanty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap www.chanty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →