Business Instant Messaging
Stackfield
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Stackfield GmbH · www.stackfield.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.
Stackfield at a glance
- Vendor
- Stackfield GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Starting price
- “STARTER € 9 per User and Month (when paid yearly)” (vendor’s words) source, captured 21 Sep 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Stackfield 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Stackfield is a business instant messaging product strongest where it advertises: encryption and access scored 8 to 9, on client-side AES and RSA encryption, per-room passwords, admin-enforceable policy, a whitepaper, and statements that neither the vendor nor its subcontractors can read enabled rooms. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 21 Sep 2026 to 19 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 20 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Stackfield is a business instant messaging product strongest where it advertises: encryption and access scored 8 to 9, on client-side AES and RSA encryption, per-room passwords, admin-enforceable policy, a whitepaper, and statements that neither the vendor nor its subcontractors can read enabled rooms. Governance and discovery is weakest at 4 to 5: automated deletion rules are announced for the third quarter of 2026 from Premium onwards rather than shipped, room export saves as PDF, the global export sits in the Enterprise tier, and the judges found no public information on legal hold. Messaging core splits from 4 to 6, and the reasoning is visible: one judge counted the separate discussions and comments as threaded discussion while others found no evidence of threading inside the chat, and no public information covers search filters or message edit history. Deployment control reaches 6 to 7 on a genuine on-premise edition requiring no internet, sovereignty 7 to 8 on German hosting and EU-based subcontractor statements, pricing transparency uniform at 7, tiers €9 to €28 per user and month when paid yearly.
Speaks for it
- End-to-end encryption is first-class and admin-enforceable, with the vendor stating that neither it nor its subcontractors can read enabled rooms.
- A genuine on-premise edition runs without internet on the organisation's own network, with a vendor-run migration project that carries the data from the cloud.
- All four cloud tiers carry public per-user prices — Starter at €9, Business at €14, Premium at €18, Enterprise at €28 per user and month when paid yearly — quoted net and exclusive of VAT, with a stated 17 percent yearly saving.
- Stackfield GmbH of Munich is the named contracting entity, hosting sits in ISO-certified German data centers, and ISO 27001, 27017, 27018 and BSI C5 certificates are downloadable.
- The API is documented down to error codes, incoming webhooks can be secured with JWT, and the Microsoft Teams integration can be disabled organisation-wide by admins.
Held against it
- Governance and discovery scored 4 to 5, with automated deletion rules announced for the third quarter of 2026 from Premium onwards rather than shipped today.
- Room export saves as PDF, the organisation-wide global export sits in the Enterprise tier, and we found no public information on legal hold.
- Messaging core scored 4 to 6, with no public information on threading inside chats, search filters by person or date, or message edit history.
- We found no public information on device verification, admin-revocable sessions, a published list naming the subprocessors, storage limits or a minimum contract term.
- The captured pages give different statements on processing location — one states exclusively EU servers including telemetry, another names the EU plus countries the EU classifies as safe — and on-premise licensing shows only a 100-license minimum with no public price.
Best for
- You need end-to-end encryption your administrators can enforce per room, backed by a vendor that states it holds no room keys.
- Your organisation must run chat on its own servers, with an on-premise edition that requires no internet connection and a documented migration from the cloud.
- You are a German or EU buyer weighing a Munich-registered contracting entity, German data centers and downloadable ISO and BSI C5 certificates.
- You need to price the cloud up front, with four public tiers from €9 to €28 per user and month when paid yearly.
Avoid if
- You need automated retention today — deletion rules are dated for the third quarter of 2026 and available from the Premium package onwards.
- Your compliance workflow depends on structured conversation export — room export saves as PDF and the global export sits in the Enterprise tier.
- You need encrypted content exportable by default — exporting end-to-end encrypted data is blocked unless an administrator explicitly allows it.
- You need self-hosting below 100 licenses — the on-premise edition carries a minimum order of 100 licenses with no public price.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Channels, threads & search | 2.5 of 5 |
| Encryption & access control | 4 of 5 |
| Retention, discovery & co-determination | 2 of 5 |
| Deployment & data custody | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & extensibility | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 4 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3.5 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
Rooms carry a team chat, threaded discussions and comments, @-mentions including @all, and files organised in folders with version history — a surface that survives a busy Tuesday. Archived rooms and single entries stay reachable through global search and can be restored without losing history, and a room exports to PDF a human can read. I found no public information on search filters by person or date, message edit history, or any stated history limit, so I cannot confirm how reliably search finds last spring's decision. 1 6 7 10 11
The Security Officer
Direct messages and group chats carry mentions, reactions and a real files module with versioning, and rooms can be archived, renamed, restored and exported as PDF with the who-and-when documented. We found no public information on threading inside chats, on search filters or ranking, or on any history limit — so whether an eighteen-month-old decision stays findable rests on a global search the pages only mention in passing. 1 6 7 10 11
The Works Council Advocate
Rooms and direct messages carry mentions including an all-mention, emoji reactions, a files tab with version history and calls, and archived rooms stay reachable through a global search. We found no public information on threading inside chats, on search filters by person or date, or on how far back search reaches, so an eighteen-month-old decision is not assured to surface. 6 7 11
The Compliance Counsel
Direct messages and group chats with @-mentions, files gathered into an administered tab with versioning, and a global search that reaches archived rooms make the daily surface workable. I found no public information on threads inside the chat, search filters by person or date, or whether edited messages keep a history — and for my purposes the readable PDF export of a conversation is the part a court file can actually survive. 7 6 11 10
The Platform Engineer
Rooms and group chats with mentions and an @all, favorites, mute and reminders, files that version and can be commented individually, and an archive where rooms and entries survive and can be restored without losing history. I found no public information on thread semantics, message edit history, pinning, or search filters by channel, person and date — search shows up only as a global search reaching archived rooms, and room export lands as PDF. 6 7 10 11
The Skeptic
Rooms and direct messages with @-mentions and @all, a real file module with folders and version history, and archive-and-restore for rooms with everything logged. The only search evidence is a passing mention that global search reaches archived rooms — we found no public information on search filters, ranking, or a documented history limit — and I found no evidence of threading inside the chat itself, only separate discussions and comments. 6 7 11 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
End-to-end encryption is a first-class, admin-enforceable mode — client-side AES and RSA with a downloadable whitepaper, the vendor stating plainly it holds no room keys, and trade-offs named for making chats encrypted retroactively and for exporting encrypted data. Access control is equally serious: fine-grained rights per room, four roles with scoped guest behaviour, single sign-on, centrally enforced two-factor and an IP whitelist. I found no public information on device verification or sessions an admin can revoke, which is the only distance from the top mark. 6 8 9 10
The Security Officer
This is the vendor's pitch and it holds up on the pages: client-side end-to-end encryption of rooms and direct messages using AES and RSA, admin settings that can force it always on, a downloadable whitepaper, and the plain statement I look for — Stackfield has no access to the room keys and can read nothing in encrypted rooms, with even the export trade-off named since encrypted rooms stay unexportable unless an admin opts in. I hold it here because we found no public information on device verification or on sessions an administrator can revoke, and the room keys are entangled with the login password, which an ordinary user will one day lose. 5 8 9 10
The Works Council Advocate
End-to-end encryption is documented as client-side AES plus RSA with a downloadable whitepaper, the vendor states plainly that it holds no room keys and that neither it, its subcontractors nor a court can read enabled rooms, and organisation admins can force encryption across all rooms and direct messages. Guest and external roles are scoped — externals cannot use direct messages — with centrally enforced two-factor and an IP whitelist; we found no public information on device or key verification, or on session revocation an admin can perform. 7 8 9 10
The Compliance Counsel
End-to-end encryption is a first-class, documented mode: client-side AES and RSA, a downloadable whitepaper, automatically generated per-room passwords, admin-level encryption policy, and plain statements that neither the operator nor its subcontractors hold the keys to encrypted rooms. I found no public information on identity verification between users or on admin revocation of active sessions, which keeps me one step short of the top of this scale. 9 10 8 14
The Platform Engineer
End-to-end encryption with client-held AES and RSA keys, auto-generated per-room passwords distinct from the login password, admin-level encryption policy per room type, and the operator stating plainly that neither a court nor Stackfield nor its subcontractors can read enabled rooms. Roles run from Admin to External with fine-grained rights at global and room level, SSO, centrally enforced two-factor, IP whitelisting and a per-account access log; I found no public information on device-to-device identity verification or sessions an admin can revoke, which is what holds this below the top band. 9 10 5 7 8
The Skeptic
The sentence I look for is actually there: end-to-end encryption is optional per room and for direct messages with admin toggles (always, never, or creator's choice), AES and RSA are named, a whitepaper exists, and the vendor states plainly it holds no room keys and cannot read enabled rooms even under court order. The trade-off is named too — exporting encrypted data is blocked unless an admin explicitly allows it. We found no public information on device verification or admin-revocable sessions, which keeps it below the top. 9 10 8 7
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
The archive is handled with discipline — every archiving is documented with who and when, organisation-settings changes land in a report, and rooms export to PDF, CSV or Excel with scope bounded by each user's rights. But the automated deletion rules are dated for the third quarter of 2026 and gated to the Premium package, so retention automation is announced rather than evidenced in operation, and I found no public information on legal hold, per-room retention, or a switch for the login reporting that shows when employees last logged on. 5 8 10 11
The Security Officer
Exports are real and documented — rooms as PDF, views as CSV or Excel, a global export at the top tier — and both settings changes and archiving actions are reported with who and when. But automated deletion rules are announced for the third quarter of 2026 from Premium onwards rather than shipped today, and we found no public information on legal hold or on any switch for the per-user login reporting a works council would ask about. 4 5 8 10 11
The Works Council Advocate
Archiving keeps a who-and-when trail, rooms can be deleted outright from the archive rather than only hidden, and exports exist as PDF for rooms and as PDF, CSV or Excel for module views — but the automated deletion rules that would make retention real are dated for the third quarter of 2026 and sit from the Premium package onwards. A reporting feature shows when each employee last logged in, and we found no public information on switching such monitoring off organisation-wide, on legal hold, or on presence that a user controls. 5 8 10 11
The Compliance Counsel
Room export to PDF is documented, archiving actions carry who-and-when records, and organization settings changes are collected into a report — but this is not a discovery package. I found no public information on legal hold, on retention per room shipping today (automated deletion rules are announced for the third quarter of 2026 from Premium onwards), on export that captures edits and deletions, or on organisation-wide switchable activity analytics; the export also stops at what the exporting admin can already see. 10 11 8 5
The Platform Engineer
Automated deletion rules are announced for the third quarter of 2026 from the Premium package, so retention is a roadmap item rather than a shipped capability; admin export is documented but room export saves as PDF, and the global export sits in the enterprise tier. There is a settings-change report, documented archiving actions with who and when, and per-account access logs, but also login reporting on when employees were last active, and I found no public information on legal hold, per-room retention today, or switching activity monitoring off organisation-wide. 5 8 10 11
The Skeptic
Automated deletion rules exist but only from the Premium package, export is documented as PDF, CSV or Excel with a global export reserved for the top tier, and there is an organization-settings change report plus archiving actions documented with who and when. We found no public information on legal hold, eDiscovery export including edits and deletions, or whether the last-login reporting can be switched off. 8 5 10 11 2
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
On-premise on your own servers is genuine — no internet connection required, end-to-end encryption in both versions, Active Directory and white-labelling, and a documented migration project from the cloud onto your own machines run by their team. It stays proprietary with a minimum order of 100 licenses, and I found no public information on a complete export including metadata; the organisation-wide global export sits in the Enterprise tier. 10 12 13 2
The Security Officer
Custody can genuinely be the customer's: an on-premise edition that runs without internet on the organisation's own network, a private-cloud variant with Active Directory, white-labelling and external users, and a vendor-run migration project from cloud to on-premise. We found no public information on open source, federation, or how the self-hosted edition's functions compare with the cloud, and that edition starts at a minimum of 100 licenses. 12 13
The Works Council Advocate
A genuine on-premise edition and a private cloud on the customer's own servers are documented, with encryption available in both versions and a migration from cloud to on-premise that the vendor's own team carries out. The on-premise licence carries a minimum of 100 licenses, we found no public information on its price or on an open-source or federated option, and room export lands as PDF rather than a complete archive with metadata. 10 12 13
The Compliance Counsel
Custody can genuinely be the customer's: an on-premise edition run on the own network with no internet requirement, Active Directory connection, external users with separate rights, and a vendor-run migration project from the cloud including the data. I found no public information on open-source licensing, federation, or a complete archive export including files and metadata, and the captured pages do not state how the single on-premise feature range compares to the cloud. 12 13 2
The Platform Engineer
A genuine on-premise edition that runs without internet access, a private-cloud variant on the customer's own servers with Active Directory connection and white labelling, and a vendor-run migration project from cloud to on-premise that carries the data along. The on-premise line ships as a single range of functions with a minimum order of 100 licences, and I found no public information on source availability, federation, an open protocol, or the on-premise upgrade and release path; export completeness beyond PDF room exports is not spelled out either. 12 13 2 10
The Skeptic
A genuine on-premise edition on the customer's own servers, runnable without internet, plus a private-cloud variant, with a vendor-run migration project for moving from cloud to on-premise — the exit is documented rather than resisted. On-premise carries a minimum order of 100 licenses and a single range of functions, and we found no public information on an open-source edition or any open protocol and federation. 12 13 10 2
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
The API is documented down to error codes, incoming webhooks take JSON and can be JWT-secured, and event webhooks cover seventeen content types from chat messages to user and room lifecycle — enough wiring to make chat the place work is noticed. A Microsoft Teams integration with synced rights and an admin kill-switch, user provisioning via API, and Zapier/IFTTT guides round it out. I found no public information on bot accounts, an app framework with interactive components, rate limits or a sandbox. 8 14 15
The Security Officer
There is a documented API with error codes, incoming webhooks that can be secured with a JSON Web Token, a long list of webhook content types, and a Microsoft Teams integration whose rights synchronize from the source organisation and which admins can switch off entirely. We found no public information on a bot framework, slash commands, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox, so this reads as solid plumbing rather than a platform. 5 8 14 15
The Works Council Advocate
There is a documented API with incoming webhooks across many content types, optional JWT securing for webhooks, documented error codes, user provisioning via the API and single sign-on, plus a Microsoft Teams integration that admins can disable organisation-wide. We found no public information on a bot or app framework, slash commands, SCIM provisioning, rate limits or a sandbox. 8 14 15
The Compliance Counsel
A documented API with documented error codes, incoming webhooks securable with JWT, an extensive list of event content types, user provisioning by API and single sign-on give a real automation surface, and the Microsoft Teams integration is deep with rights synchronisation and an admin off-switch. I found no public information on a bot or app framework, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits or a sandbox. 14 15 8
The Platform Engineer
A documented API with error codes, incoming webhooks with optional JWT and seventeen webhook content types from chat message to room archiving, plus a Microsoft Teams integration whose access rights stay synchronized from the Stackfield organization and which admins can disable. I found no public information on documented rate limits, a sandbox, SCIM, or a bot and app framework with permissions a customer can audit, and API-based provisioning is an enterprise-tier feature. 14 15 8 2
The Skeptic
A documented API with error codes, incoming webhooks with optional JWT, an event-style webhook list covering messages, tasks, user and room events, a Microsoft Teams integration with synced rights that admins can disable, and user provisioning via the API — though provisioning sits in the top tier. We found no public information on a bot framework, slash commands, documented rate limits, or a sandbox. 14 15 8 2
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
German entity and contracting party, hosting in German ISO 27001-certified data centres with all processing including telemetry on EU servers only, subcontractors stated to be EU-based with no AWS, Google Cloud or Azure, German and EU jurisdiction only, downloadable ISO 27001, 27017, 27018 and BSI C5 certificates, plus an on-premise option that removes the question. The captured pages describe subcontractors as EU-based but I found no public information on a published, item-by-item subprocessor list, which is the one gap short of a clean sweep. 3 5 8 12
The Security Officer
Stackfield GmbH of Munich is the contracting entity, hosting sits in German ISO-certified data centers, subcontractors are stated to be EU-based with AWS, Google Cloud and Azure named as not in use, and the certificates are downloadable. Two things hold it back: we found no published list of the individual subprocessors, and the captured pages give different statements on processing location — one says exclusively EU servers including telemetry, the other names the EU plus countries the EU classifies as safe, with US services certified under the Data Privacy Framework. 3 4 5 8 12
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is Stackfield GmbH of Munich with a German commercial register entry, hosting sits in ISO-certified German data centres, processing including telemetry is stated to happen exclusively on EU servers, subcontractors are stated to be EU-based with no non-EU control, and ISO 27001, 27017, 27018 and BSI C5 certifications are published with download. We found no public information naming the individual subprocessors, and the privacy policy also allows processing in countries the EU classifies as safe or appropriate, so the end-to-end claim is strong but not fully evidenced. 3 4 5 8 12
The Compliance Counsel
The captured pages name Stackfield GmbH of Munich with register number and VAT ID, German data centers with EU-only processing that explicitly includes telemetry, EU-based subcontractors only, downloadable ISO and BSI certificates, and an on-premise edition that removes the question. I found no public information on a published, named subprocessor list or the named data-center operators — and the independently collected sovereignty data itself returned unknown for jurisdiction, residency and subprocessors, which the quotes do not fully resolve for me. 3 5 8 4 12
The Platform Engineer
A Munich-registered company with commercial register entry, LEI and VAT identification published, German data centres with processing exclusively on EU servers including telemetry, subcontractors described as EU-based with no control exercisable from outside the EU, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 plus BSI C5 certificates available for download, and an on-premise option that takes the question off the table. The captured pages give no named subprocessor identities or named infrastructure providers, so the chain is asserted rather than itemised, which is what keeps this from the top. 3 5 8 12 13
The Skeptic
German contracting entity and jurisdiction with the register entry published, hosting in German data centers, subcontractors stated to be EU-only with no AWS, Google Cloud or Azure, and ISO 27001, 27017, 27018 plus BSI C5 with downloadable certificates. But the data centers and subcontractors are described, not named — we found no public information on a published subprocessor list or named infrastructure — and a self-hosted option exists, so custody can at least be taken in-house. 3 4 5 8 12
Pricing transparency
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
Every cloud tier carries a public per-user price — € 9, € 14, € 18 and € 28 per user and month when paid yearly — with VAT stated as net and exclusive, a stated 17 percent yearly saving against monthly billing, priced add-ons such as the AI add-on at + 3,90 € per user and month, and boundaries clear enough to see deletion rules start at Premium while single sign-on and the global export sit at Enterprise. The monthly figures and any minimum term are not on the captured pages, and on-premise licensing appears only as a minimum of 100 licenses with a pointer to a separate overview — enough to price the cloud, not yet the whole invoice. 8 12 2 2
The Security Officer
Every cloud tier carries a public per-user yearly price with the add-ons itemised separately and VAT treatment stated, so an annual invoice for a given headcount on the cloud is largely computable. The monthly figure appears only as a percentage saving, and we found no public information on storage or history limits, contract terms, guest pricing, or any price for the on-premise edition beyond its 100-license minimum. 2 12 2 2
The Works Council Advocate
All four tiers carry public per-user prices — Starter at €9, Business at €14, Premium at €18 and Enterprise at €28 per user and month when paid yearly — with all prices quoted net and exclusive of VAT, feature boundaries listed (single sign-on and global export at Enterprise, deletion rules from Premium) and four add-ons itemised per user and month. We found no public information on storage or history limits, a minimum term, the monthly-billed per-user figures, or the price of the on-premise licence beyond its minimum of 100 licenses. 2 8 12 2 2
The Compliance Counsel
All four tiers carry public per-user prices with the yearly discount, a monthly billing option and the net-of-VAT treatment stated, the tier boundaries for deletion rules, single sign-on and global export are published, and four add-ons carry exact per-user prices. On-premise licensing shows only a 100-license minimum with no public price, and I found no public information on storage limits or a minimum contract term. 2 2 8 12
The Platform Engineer
All four tiers carry public per-user prices with the billing period stated, VAT treatment is explicit as net and exclusive of VAT, add-ons such as AI, Office, professional secrecy and public sector are priced from stated tiers, and the feature boundaries from Starter to Enterprise are visible, including where single sign-on and global export begin. The captures show only the yearly figures despite a monthly toggle, and I found no public information on storage or history limits, minimum term, or the per-licence price of the on-premise version beyond the 100-licence minimum. 2 2 5 12 2
The Skeptic
Four tiers priced publicly at € 9, € 14, € 18 and € 28 per user and month when paid yearly, VAT stated as net and exclusive, add-ons priced, and the tier boundaries I read for are visible: single sign-on and global export sit at € 28, deletion rules at Premium, unlimited externals from Premium. We found no public information on the on-premise licence price beyond the 100-license minimum, on storage limits, or on a minimum contract term. 2 2 12 8
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 Stackfield
Is Stackfield European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Stackfield as EU-Made.
Where does Stackfield store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026.
Does Stackfield have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Stackfield?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Element (3.5/5), Mattermost (3.5/5) and Wire (Messaging) (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: Stackfield alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 21 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, Subprocessors, Legal entity. 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.
- 49 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
- 17 integrations 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
- 11 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
- 11 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 subprocessors 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 hosting 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 pricing 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 13 Oct 2026, 30 Sep 2026, 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Retention, discovery & co-determination — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Retention, discovery & co-determination — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Deployment & data custody — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Deployment & data custody — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap www.stackfield.com Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →