whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Business Instant Messaging

Siilo

Provenance unknown 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 Siilo B.V. · siilo.com

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

Link to this page

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

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Siilo at a glance

Vendor
Siilo B.V.
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Siilo 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Siilo B.V., now called Doctolib Connect, is judged here as a free messenger for healthcare professionals plus a 'tailored solution' closed secure network for organisations, on a stated 10 M monthly messages from 1.2 M professional users and 225 K care organisations in Europe. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources

Siilo alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Compliance Counsel

Weighted verdict

Will one day have to produce this archive, edits and deletions included, to a regulator or a court. Wants legal hold, an export a lawyer can work from, retention per channel, and an audit trail that survives the admin who made the change.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Compliance Counsel

Panel median The Compliance Counsel 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 Compliance Counsel
Channels, threads & search 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5
Encryption & access control 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5
Retention, discovery & co-determination 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5
Deployment & data custody 0 of 5 0 of 5
Integrations & extensibility 0 of 5 0 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1 of 5

Channels, threads & search

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

The captured page shows a service carrying ten million monthly messages for over a million healthcare professionals, but I found no public information on the channel model, threading, mentions, file handling, or any documented history limit. A messenger whose ability to find an eighteen-month-old decision is entirely undocumented is, for my purposes, not a record system. 1

Report an error

Encryption & access control

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

Security appears as positioning — a heading reading 'Data security guaranteed' and a 'closed secure network' for organisations — yet I found no public information on the encryption mechanism, key custody, session or device management, configurable roles, SSO, or guest scoping. A published processor agreement signals contractual intent, but a guarantee without a documented mechanism is something I would have to qualify in any opinion letter. 1

Report an error

Retention, discovery & co-determination

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

The one hard governance artefact is a published processor agreement; beyond it I found no public information on retention configuration per channel or workspace, legal hold, discovery export that includes edits and deletions, audit logging of administrative actions, or any organisation-wide control over analytics. Nothing here lets me tell a client the archive would survive a subpoena or a works council negotiation on the same day. 1

Report an error

Deployment & data custody

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

Everything captured describes a hosted service — a free individual product and a tailored closed network for organisations — and I found no public information on self-hosting, a dedicated-instance option, open source, a documented full export, or a migration path in either direction. Custody of the archive appears to rest with the vendor, and I found no public information on what an exit would look like. 1

Report an error

Integrations & extensibility

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

I found no public information on an API, incoming or outgoing webhooks, a bot account model, slash commands, SCIM provisioning, SSO, or documented rate limits. The organisations offering speaks of members who communicate, connect and collaborate, which describes people rather than a programmable platform. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

The contracting entity is Siilo B.V., a Dutch company form, and the claimed footprint is European — 225,000 care organisations — but I found no public information on where message content and metadata are hosted, on any subprocessor list, or on residency guarantees or certification. The announced rename to Doctolib Connect also leaves open which entity a customer will contract with and under whose custody the archive will sit. 1

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

A public price does exist for individuals — a 'free secure messaging solution for healthcare professionals' — but the organisations tier, where a care provider would actually contract and where retention and compliance capabilities would sit, is described only as tailored. I found no public information on per-user pricing for that tier, billing period, minimum term, VAT treatment, or feature boundaries, so an annual invoice cannot be derived from public pages. 1

Report an error

Questions about Siilo

Is Siilo European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Siilo is based.

Where does Siilo store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

Does Siilo have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Siilo?

As of 20 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: Siilo alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

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

Sources (1)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page siilo.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →