Business Instant Messaging
Speakap
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Speakap B.V. · www.speakap.com
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
Speakap presents itself as an employee experience platform connecting HQ and frontline teams, with 600+ companies cited and industries spanning retail, manufacturing, construction, logistics, and hospitality. The bench's steadiest score is integrations at 2-2 — a heading promising "all your tech tools in one surprisingly easy-to-use platform," with no documented API, webhooks, or bot model behind it. Encryption and access scored 0-0: no public information on encryption, key handling, single sign-on, roles, or guest access. Messaging core ranges 0-1 behind a named employee-communication module with no public information on search, threading, or history limits; deployment control also ranges 0-1, with no public information on self-hosting or archive export. Governance and discovery spans 0-1 — workforce analytics is the headline pitch, and judges split on whether that silence (retention, audit log, off-switch) is the floor or a point above. Sovereignty splits 1-2: the only European signal is the Dutch corporate form Speakap B.V., against pages giving no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or certification. No prices appear on the captured page; the buying motion shown is a Customer Success relationship.
Speaks for it
- Integrations scored 2-2, the steadiest mark recorded, behind the vendor's promise that existing tech tools come together in one platform
- Desktop and mobile apps are confirmed on the vendor page
- The vendor presents itself as Speakap B.V., a Dutch corporate form the judges read as a European contracting signal
- A broad module set is named, from employee onboarding and engagement to compliance and training and workforce insights
- Custom branding of the platform is offered — "your employee experience platform, your brand"
Held against it
- Encryption and access scored 0-0, with no public information on encryption, key handling, single sign-on, roles, or guest access
- Messaging core ranges 0-1, with no public information on search, threading, mentions, or history limits behind the named employee-communication module
- Governance and discovery ranges 0-1, as workforce analytics is the headline pitch with no public information on retention, audit logging, or an organisation-wide off switch
- Deployment control ranges 0-1, with no public information on self-hosting, a private instance, or a documented export path
- No price, tier name, or billing period appears on the captured page
Best for
- You need one platform connecting HQ and frontline teams on confirmed desktop and mobile apps, with custom branding, in one of the named industries
- You want a broad employee-experience suite — onboarding, engagement, communication, compliance and training are all named modules — rather than a standalone messaging tool
- You plan to bring existing tech tools onto the platform and will ask the vendor directly for the API, webhook, and provisioning documentation — we found no public information on any of them
- You expect a sales-led purchase with a Customer Success team described as present from the start
Avoid if
- You must see documented encryption, key handling, single sign-on, and guest scoping before putting all workforce communication in one platform — encryption and access scored 0-0
- Your works council needs to co-determine workforce measurement — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need to hold or export your own message archive — the pages present only desktop and mobile apps, and deployment control ranges 0-1
- You must compute an annual cost before contact — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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 shows an employee-communication module with mobile and desktop apps and nothing more on the messaging surface itself. We found no public information on threading, message search, file handling, or any history limit — and for a team that needs last spring's decision findable, that silence is the whole story. 1
The Security Officer
The captured page presents an employee communication module inside a platform for HQ and frontline teams, but I found no public information on the channel model, threading, mentions, file handling, or search — let alone whether a search would surface a decision made eighteen months ago. With nothing evidencing the daily surface, this sits just above the floor. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages present a communication and digital workplace suite connecting HQ and frontline teams, but we found no public information on channels, threads, mentions, message search, or any history limit. A chat surface whose archive and search model is entirely undocumented cannot be assessed above the floor, and for a works council that treats chat as a record of who spoke to whom, that silence is decisive. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The captured page names an employee-communication module with desktop and mobile apps, but I found no public information on the channel model, threading, message search, or any history limit — nothing here evidences that a decision made eighteen months ago could be found again. 1
The Platform Engineer
The page names an employee communication module, but we found no public information on channels, threading, mentions, or search. Nothing in the capture establishes whether message history exists as a searchable archive, so this sits at the bottom of the scale by default. 1
The Skeptic
Employee communication appears as one module name among seven, but I found no public information on a channel model, threading, mentions, file handling, or search — not even a stated history limit to interrogate. A messaging product whose public pages say nothing about the message surface is unevidenced rather than modest, which lands just above the floor. 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
We found no public information on encryption, key handling, single sign-on, roles, or guest access on the captured page, so there is nothing here to judge who can reach which room or what the vendor can read. 1
The Security Officer
I found no public information on encryption of content in transit or at rest, key custody, device verification, session management an admin could revoke, a role model, or guest scoping — and no statement of what the vendor can or cannot read. A judge who assumes the archive will one day be read by someone it was not meant for treats an entirely silent security story as the lowest score. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on encryption, key handling, device or session management, single sign-on, roles, or guest access — the criterion is judged on documented mechanism and nothing is documented. Without a plain statement of what the vendor can read, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The captured pages document no encryption mechanism and no access model; I found no public information on what the vendor can read, on key handling, on roles, or on how guest access is scoped. 1
The Platform Engineer
Judged on documented mechanism, and no mechanism is documented: we found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, key handling, roles, SSO, or guest scoping. The capture is marketing copy only, so the floor applies. 1
The Skeptic
I read the whole capture for a single sentence about encryption, key handling, per-channel roles, guest access, or the tier where SSO appears, and the captured page contains none. The criterion is judged on documented mechanism, and total silence on mechanism is worth the floor. 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
We found no public information on retention policies, discovery export, or an audit log, and the page promotes workforce analytics with no public information on any organisation-wide switch for it — the first question a works council will ask. 1
The Security Officer
Retention policy, export for discovery, and audit logging have nothing on record. The only governance-adjacent material is analytics promoted as a headline — "Turn data into decisions - no PhD required" under workforce analytics and insights — and I found no public information on whether that analytics can be switched off organisation-wide. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Workforce analytics and workforce insights are advertised as headline modules, yet we found no public information on retention policies, documented deletion, export for discovery, an audit log, or any organisation-wide switch to turn the analytics off. Measurement of the workforce sold as a feature, with no evidenced retention that deletes or control that can be co-determined, is precisely what a works agreement would have to negotiate blind. 1
The Compliance Counsel
For the archive as a legal object I found no public information on retention policies, legal hold, discovery export, or an audit trail. The pages market workforce analytics and workforce insights as headline modules, and I found no public information on any organisation-wide switch for them or on limits on individual-level measurement. 1
The Platform Engineer
Workforce analytics is advertised front and centre with no public information on whether it can be disabled organisation-wide, and we found no public information on retention policy, export formats, or an audit log. That combination is exactly what the lowest point of this criterion describes. 1
The Skeptic
Workforce analytics is the headline pitch — "Turn data into decisions - no PhD required" — yet I found no public information on retention policy, admin export, an audit log, or any way to turn the analytics off organisation-wide. For a platform sold into frontline workforces, that silence on the archive as a legal object is the finding. 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 dedicated-instance option, or export of the archive in any format; the captured page presents only desktop and mobile apps as the deployment surface. 1
The Security Officer
I found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud or dedicated-instance option, open-source code, federation, or a documented export and exit path. The only deployment facts captured are desktop and mobile apps. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages describe a cloud service delivered on desktop and mobile apps, and we found no public information on self-hosting, private instances, source availability, federation, or a documented full export. As far as public evidence goes, custody of the archive rests entirely with the vendor, with no exit path shown. 1
The Compliance Counsel
I found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud or dedicated-instance option, an open-source edition, or a documented export format — the question of who holds the archive in a custody sense is not addressed on the captured pages. 1
The Platform Engineer
Everything captured describes a vendor-hosted employee-experience platform; we found no public information on self-hosting, source availability, federation, or a documented export path for an exit. For a buyer who would rather hold their own archive, the captured pages give me nothing to evaluate. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page presents a vendor-run cloud service under an all-rights-reserved copyright, and I found no public information on self-hosting, a private instance, source availability, federation, or a documented export of the archive. Custody and exit are unaddressed on the public record, which sits at the bottom of the scale. 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
A single section heading promises all tech tools in one platform, with no named integrations underneath it. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, slash commands, or a bot framework — a heading will not carry a busy Tuesday. 1
The Security Officer
Integrations are advertised — "all your tech tools in one surprisingly easy-to-use platform" — but I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model, or SSO, nor any documented limits. An integrations claim with no visible interface lands below basic. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor advertises that existing tech tools can be brought onto the platform, which is more than nothing. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, bot accounts, provisioning, or rate limits, so this cannot be scored as a buildable developer-facing platform. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The vendor states that a customer's existing tech tools come together in the platform, but I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, a bot framework, or identity provisioning — nothing evidences a surface a customer could build against. 1
The Platform Engineer
The claim of all your tech tools in one platform suggests native integrations exist, but we found no public information on an API, webhooks, a bot framework, documented rate limits, or app permissions a customer could audit. Between a bare integrations claim and real documented webhooks, this lands nearer the bottom. 1
The Skeptic
"All your tech tools in one surprisingly easy-to-use platform" is the extent of it — integrations exist as a marketing heading. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, a bot account model, rate limits, or identity provisioning, so this clears the floor only because native integrations are at least named. 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
The vendor is presented as Speakap B.V., which reads as a Dutch contracting entity, but we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or certification, and the independently collected sovereignty profile holds nothing on record. 1
The Security Officer
The only European element on record is the Dutch legal form in the vendor's own name; the independently collected sovereignty attributes came back empty. I found no public information on where content or metadata are hosted, which subprocessors touch them, or any certification. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only European signal is the contracting entity's Dutch corporate form, Speakap B.V.; we found no public information on where messages and metadata are hosted, on any subprocessor list, on certification, or on the legal basis for any processing. Residency of the archive cannot be confirmed from the captured pages, so the sovereign attributes remain unevidenced. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The vendor presents itself as Speakap B.V., a Dutch corporate form, which points to an EU contracting entity. Beyond that, no hosting location, data residency, subprocessor list, or certification is published that I could find, so the chain that touches the archive and its metadata is undocumented. 1
The Platform Engineer
The vendor is named as Speakap B.V., which reads as a Dutch contracting entity, but the sovereignty record carries no attributes and we found no public information on hosting location, infrastructure, subprocessors, or certification in what was captured. An entity suffix alone does not move this far off the floor. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor name carries a Dutch legal form, but the captured page states nothing about hosting location, the contracting entity, subprocessors, or certification, and no sovereignty attributes were independently confirmed. With subprocessors unnamed and hosting unstated, a European buyer can verify almost nothing about where the archive and its metadata live. 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
We found no public pricing information at all — no per-user figure, no tier names, no billing period — so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice for any headcount from the captured page. 1
The Security Officer
I found no public information on prices, tiers, billing periods, storage or history limits, or minimum terms. A buyer cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from what was captured, even though the customer success team is described as included from the start. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page names no tiers, no per-user prices, and no billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment, while a customer success team accompanies every step of the purchase — a fully sales-led model. We found no public information from which a buyer could compute an annual invoice for a given headcount. 1
The Compliance Counsel
The captured page carries no prices, tiers, billing periods, or VAT treatment, and I found no public information on where retention control, compliance export, or guest access would begin — the buying motion shown is a Customer Success relationship rather than a computable invoice. 1
The Platform Engineer
The capture publishes no per-user prices, tiers, billing periods, or feature boundaries; the nearest thing to a commercial structure is a Customer Success team. A buyer cannot compute any annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Skeptic
No price, tier, billing period, or per-user figure appears in the capture; the page sells a claimed 40% turnover reduction and a Customer Success team where an invoice breakdown should be. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from public pages, and there is no tier structure at all to ask where retention or SSO begins. 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 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. 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (speakap.com, speakap.com/product/security-compliance, speakap.com/product/internal-chat-app, speakap.com/de/produkt/interne-chat-app, speakap.com/de/produkt/security-compliance, speakap.com/product/integrations and 1 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 7 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
- 2 legal 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 hosting 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.speakap.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.speakap.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap www.speakap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap www.speakap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap www.speakap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap www.speakap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap www.speakap.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →