Business Instant Messaging
Talkspirit
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Talkspirit SAS · www.talkspirit.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.
Talkspirit at a glance
- Vendor
- Talkspirit SAS
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Talkspirit 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Talkspirit, a business instant messaging product from Talkspirit SAS, is strongest on integrations, scores 5-6: webhooks documented down to interruption after five consecutive failures, a Partner API with its own keys and scopes, SCIM 2.0 provisioning, Okta (SAML) single sign-on and connectors to Slack, Teams, Jira and the cloud drives. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 27 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 27 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Talkspirit, a business instant messaging product from Talkspirit SAS, is strongest on integrations, scores 5-6: webhooks documented down to interruption after five consecutive failures, a Partner API with its own keys and scopes, SCIM 2.0 provisioning, Okta (SAML) single sign-on and connectors to Slack, Teams, Jira and the cloud drives. Messaging core clusters at 4-5, carried by search across posts, files and chat messages with operators for author, label, hashtag and date. Deployment control sits at 0-1 and sovereignty at 0-2: the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are all unknown, with no public information on self-hosting, open source or federation. Encryption and access scores span 2-4 — roles, single sign-on and a granular password policy are documented, but we found no public information on encryption in transit or at rest, and judges weighed that silence differently. Governance and discovery scores 2-3: chat history and uploaded files are stated as not included in any export. We found no public prices; the only tier fact is a single brand colour on the Enterprise plan.
Speaks for it
- Outgoing webhooks are documented in operational detail, with delivery interrupted after five consecutive failures and a 429 answer read as a request to slow down.
- Search covers posts, files and chat messages with operators for author, label, hashtag and before/after dates, and archived groups' posts stay findable under an (Archived) label.
- Administrator, member and guest roles are documented, with guests confined to a chosen access scope, alongside Okta (SAML), SAML 2.0 and Google sign-in and SCIM 2.0 provisioning.
- Password policy is configurable in detail: five strength levels, complexity requirements, expiration from never to 1 year, forced resets and bulk suspension.
- Group archiving is reversible, restoring posts, the chat room and Drive documents intact.
Held against it
- Chat history is not included in any export, and uploaded files are not included either.
- The newsfeed archive arrives by email with a link that expires 24 hours after it is sent, and the archive is deleted 10 days after the request.
- Deleting a chat room permanently deletes its messages for every participant, and this cannot be undone.
- Webhook requests carry no signature, so anyone who knows the URL can send the endpoint a body that looks like the vendor's.
- We found no public information on self-hosting, open source or federation, or on encryption in transit or at rest.
Best for
- You need to drive your own systems from platform events — outgoing webhooks with a documented event taxonomy, a Partner API with its own keys and scopes, and SCIM 2.0 provisioning are the best-documented surfaces.
- Your organisation signs in through Okta, SAML 2.0 or Google and needs guest accounts limited to a chosen access scope.
- You rely on search for institutional memory, since archived groups' posts stay findable under an (Archived) label with author, label, hashtag and date operators.
Avoid if
- You must produce chat history or uploaded files for discovery, an audit or a hearing — the documentation states neither is included in any export.
- Your exit plan requires taking conversations and files with you — the documented export covers organisation structure, members and newsfeed posts only.
- You need open, organisation-wide channels — chat rooms are visible only to their participants, and we found no public information on threading or mentions.
- Your webhook endpoints must authenticate senders — requests carry no signature, so anyone who knows the URL can forge a body.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Channels, threads & search | 2 of 5 |
| Encryption & access control | 1.5 of 5 |
| Retention, discovery & co-determination | 1.5 of 5 |
| Deployment & data custody | 0.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & extensibility | 3 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
Chat rooms are private to their participants with a single room administrator, and we found no public information on threading, mentions or pinned items — the readable-channel model I need is not what the captured pages describe. Search is the bright spot, with operators for author, label, hashtag and date plus files, and archived groups keep their posts findable with an Archived label while the group can be restored with chat room and Drive documents intact; but deleting a room permanently deletes its messages for every participant. 1 2 6
The Security Officer
Search is the strong part: it covers posts, files and chat messages with author, date, label and hashtag filters, a keyboard shortcut, and archived posts stay findable under an (Archived) label. But chat is a flat, participant-only room model with one fixed administrator, message editing configurable from fifteen minutes to no limit with no edit history shown, and we found no public information on threads, mentions, pinned or saved items — and the documentation states chat history is not included in any export, so no conversation leaves in a form a human could read. 1 2 3 6
The Works Council Advocate
Rooms are participant-only conversations with a single administrator set at creation, and search is genuinely there: posts, files and chat messages, with operators for author, label, hashtag and dates, and archived groups staying searchable under an (Archived) label. We found no public information on threads, mentions, pinned or saved items, message edit history or a documented history limit, while the editing window is configurable up to no limit at all. Chat conversations are documented as excluded from every export, so a decision from eighteen months ago can be found on screen but never handed over in a readable form. 1 2 3 5 6
The Compliance Counsel
Search is genuinely better than basic — operators for author, label, hashtag and date, coverage of posts, files and chat messages, and archived groups remain findable with an "(Archived)" label. But rooms are private participant-scoped chats with a single administrator, we found no public information on threads, mentions or pinned items, and deleting a room permanently deletes its messages for every participant, so an old decision survives only as long as the room does. 1 2 6
The Platform Engineer
Search is the strong part: it covers posts, files and every conversation, with author, label, hashtag and date operators. But I found no public information on threads, mentions, pins or edit history, the room model is a participant list with one fixed administrator, and chat history is excluded from every export, so I would not bet an eighteen-month-old decision on getting back out of this system. 1 2 3 5
The Skeptic
Search is the strong part: posts, files and chat messages are all searchable with operators for author, label, hashtag and before/after dates, and archived groups' posts stay findable under an (Archived) label. But I found no public information on threading, mentions or pinned items, rooms are visible only to their participants with no open-channel model, and deleting a room permanently erases its messages for every participant. 1 2 6 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
We found no public information on encryption of messages in transit or at rest, key handling, or what the vendor itself can read, which is the documented mechanism this criterion turns on. The access side is real — administrator, member and guest roles with guests scoped by their access, SAML and Google single sign-on, SCIM provisioning and a configurable password policy — which lifts it just above the floor. 3 4
The Security Officer
Administrator, member and guest roles with guests confined to a declared access scope, SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, a genuinely granular password policy, forced password resets and bulk suspension are all documented. But we found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, end-to-end encryption, two-factor authentication, device verification, admin session revocation or any statement of what the vendor can read — and a chat room has a single fixed administrator rather than configurable per-room roles. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
What is documented is doors and passwords: five strength levels, complexity and expiration rules, force reset, SAML and Google sign-in, SCIM, three account roles and guests confined to a chosen access scope. We found no public information on encryption in transit or at rest, on what the provider itself can read, on device verification, or on sessions an administrator can revoke. Room rights are fixed — a single administrator set at creation — rather than configurable per conversation. 1 3 4
The Compliance Counsel
A real access model exists: administrator, member and scoped guest roles, per-room administrators, SAML and Google single sign-on, SCIM 2.0, and an unusually detailed password policy. We found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, on what Talkspirit itself can read, on session revocation, or on any end-to-end option — the captured security pages cover passwords only. 3 4 1
The Platform Engineer
Access control is genuinely documented: administrator, member and scoped guest roles, SAML and Google sign-in, SCIM provisioning, and a detailed configurable password policy. What I cannot see is the cryptography — I found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, key handling, session revocation or what the vendor can read — so I cannot take the encryption half on faith. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The access side is real — administrator, member and guest roles with scoped guest visibility, Okta/SAML/Google single sign-on, SCIM 2.0, and password strength, complexity and expiry configured in a documented security-policy area. But I found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, no end-to-end option, and no statement of what the vendor itself can read, and for this criterion that silence is the whole question. 3 4 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
Exports are administrator-only and cover the organisation structure, a members list and a newsfeed archive that arrives by email and is deleted ten days later — but chat history and uploaded files are not included in any export, so the part a lawyer would actually subpoena stays on screen. We found no public information on retention policy configuration, an audit log of administrative actions, legal hold, or any control over activity analytics. 5 6
The Security Officer
Administrators can export the organisation structure as JSON with an import path back in, members as CSV, and newsfeed posts as an email-delivered archive whose link expires in 24 hours and which is deleted 10 days after the request — while the documentation states chat history is not included in any export and uploaded files are not included either, so for a business messenger the record that matters cannot be produced for discovery. Group archiving is reversible and keeps posts searchable, but we found no public information on retention policies, legal hold, an audit log, or activity analytics and whether they can be switched off. 5 6
The Works Council Advocate
Archiving is documented as hiding a group and its content without deleting anything, and its posts remain searchable under an (Archived) label — retention that hides rather than deletes is exactly what a works agreement cannot accept. The administrator export covers organisation structure, members and a newsfeed archive delivered by email with a link that expires after 24 hours and a file deleted after 10 days, while chat history and uploaded files are documented as not included in any export, so the record of who spoke to whom at what hour cannot be produced for a hearing or a subpoena. We found no public information on retention policies, an audit log of administrative actions, user-controlled presence, or activity analytics and any organisation-wide switch for them. 5 6
The Compliance Counsel
The administrator export contains the organisation structure as JSON, a members CSV and a newsfeed archive; the pages state plainly that chat history is not included in any export and uploaded files are not included, and the archive link expires after 24 hours with the archive deleted 10 days after the request. Group archiving is reversible and preserves posts, chat room and Drive documents, which is the nearest thing to retention here; we found no public information on per-channel retention, legal hold, an audit log of administrative actions, or any capture of edits and deletions. 5 6 3
The Platform Engineer
Administrator export is documented with named formats, but chat history and uploaded files are excluded from every export, which is discovery-dead for a messaging product, and the newsfeed archive is emailed, expires in 24 hours and is deleted after ten days. I found no public information on retention policies, legal hold or an audit log; group archiving is reversible and archived posts stay searchable, yet deleting a chat room permanently destroys its messages for every participant. 3 5 6
The Skeptic
Administrator export is documented for the structure (JSON), members (CSV) and newsfeed posts (JSON by email), and group archiving is a reversible lifecycle with clear permission rules. But the pages state that chat history is not included in any export — conversations are read on screen — uploaded files are excluded, and the newsfeed archive link expires in 24 hours with the archive deleted after 10 days; I found no public information on retention policies, an audit log, or controls over activity analytics. 5 6 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
We found no public information on a self-hosted edition, a private-cloud option, an open-source core or federation; the only deployment the captured pages describe is the vendor's own service. The documented exit is a partial archive, since chat history and uploaded files are excluded from every export — exactly the gap that makes leaving expensive. 5
The Security Officer
We found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud or dedicated-instance option, open source or federation. The documented exit is an export of organisation structure, members and newsfeed posts, while the documentation states chat history and uploaded files are not included in any export — a customer leaving takes their structure and, on the documentation's own statement, not their conversations. 5
The Works Council Advocate
Every captured page describes the hosted service, and we found no public information on self-hosting, a dedicated or private-cloud instance, source availability or federation. The exit that is documented is partial: structure, members and newsfeed posts export, while chat history and uploaded files are stated as not included. Custody of the archive stays with the vendor as far as the public pages show. 3 5
The Compliance Counsel
Every captured page describes a hosted service, and the export a departing customer receives is partial — chat and files excluded. We found no public information on self-hosting, a dedicated-instance or private-cloud option, open source, or federation, so the archive's custody rests with the vendor by default. 5 3
The Platform Engineer
Every captured page is SaaS administration; I found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud option, an open-source edition, source availability or federation. The exit is a partial one — the structure exports as JSON and even imports back in, but conversations and files cannot leave the platform — so custody of the archive is not the customer's. 3 5
The Skeptic
I found no public information on self-hosting, a private-cloud or dedicated instance, open source, or federation — the captured pages describe an administered SaaS product. The documented exit is a partial archive of structure, members and newsfeed posts, with chat history and uploaded files left behind. 5 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 substance here: event webhooks documented down to the ten-second timeout and the cutoff after five failed deliveries, a partner API with its own keys and scopes, administrator-managed API keys, SCIM provisioning, single sign-on, an MCP server, and native connections from Jira and Trello to Slack, Teams and the four big file clouds. We found no public information on a bot account model, slash commands, interactive components, a sandbox or an API deprecation policy, and webhook requests carry no signature, which my team would have to defend at the endpoint. 3 4 7 8
The Security Officer
Outgoing webhooks are documented with unusual candour: thirty-seven event kinds of which twelve are never sent, internal-network URLs refused, five consecutive failures interrupt delivery, and the request carries no signature — a gap the vendor states plainly. A separate Partner API with its own keys and scopes, administrator-managed API keys, SCIM 2.0 and SAML single sign-on, plus connections to Slack, Teams, Jira, Trello, cloud drives, AI assistants and an MCP server give real breadth. We found no public information on incoming webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model, documented rate limits or a sandbox. 4 7 8
The Works Council Advocate
Outgoing webhooks are documented in unusual detail — event kinds, interruption after five failures, a 429 answer read as a request to slow down, and a plain statement that requests carry no signature — alongside a Partner API with its own keys and scopes, administrator-managed API keys, SCIM provisioning, SAML single sign-on and a catalogue of more than 1,000 apps. There is an MCP server and connections for AI assistants, project tools and Slack or Teams. We found no public information on incoming webhooks, bot accounts, slash commands, published rate limits or a sandbox. 3 4 7 8
The Compliance Counsel
The webhook system is documented with real operational depth — JSON posts, multiple destinations per circle, twenty-five of thirty-seven event kinds delivered, delivery interrupted after five consecutive failures with 429 answers read as a request to slow down — beside a separate Partner API with its own keys and scopes, administrator-managed API keys, SCIM, single sign-on and an MCP server. The pages themselves warn the request carries no signature, and we found no public information on slash commands, a bot account model, documented API rate limits, a sandbox, or a deprecation policy. 7 8 4 3
The Platform Engineer
This is the best-covered surface: an outgoing webhook system with documented setup, admin-level permissions, a full event taxonomy, failure and slow-down handling, plus a separate developer API with its own keys and scopes, administrator-managed API keys, an MCP server, SCIM and connectors to Slack, Teams, Jira, Trello and the cloud drives. Two things hold it back: webhook requests carry no signature, so anyone who knows the URL can forge a body, and I found no public information on incoming webhooks, bots, API rate limits or a sandbox. 3 4 7 8
The Skeptic
Webhooks are documented in unusual detail — JSON POST events, multiple destinations per circle, interruption after five failed deliveries, 429 read as a slow-down request, and twelve event kinds listed as never sent — alongside single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, an API with admin-managed keys and scopes, an MCP server, and connectors for Slack, Teams, Jira and the cloud drives. Below the top band: no evidence of an app framework with interactive components, a sandbox, or documented API rate limits, and webhook requests carry no signature — a trade-off the vendor at least states openly. 7 4 8 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
We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, the contracting entity's jurisdiction or the subprocessor chain — only that the vendor trades as a French-form company and that a document about Spark's AI data processing exists without its contents shown. For a European buyer, the questions this criterion asks are answered nowhere in the captured pages. 3
The Security Officer
We found no public information on where the archive and its metadata are hosted, the jurisdiction of the contracting entity, or the subprocessors in the chain. The only data-flow disclosure we found concerns what happens to content members send to the Spark AI assistant, and it states no location — for a buyer who must name every hand, that is not enough to plan on. 3
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on where messages and their metadata are hosted, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or on a single subprocessor. The only geography in the captured pages is a list of integrations — Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox and Box, and an AI assistant — with nothing said about where processing happens or under which safeguards. For a council that must answer where the record lives, the public pages answer nothing. 3 7
The Compliance Counsel
The only sovereignty signal anywhere is the French corporate form SAS in the vendor name; we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, subprocessors, data-residency options or certification. Every fact that determines where the archive and its metadata live would have to be extracted contractually before a European deployment. 3 4
The Platform Engineer
The captured pages give me nothing verifiable: data residency, hosting location, the contracting entity and the subprocessor chain are all unstated, and the AI assistant's data-processing page is documented without naming the provider. With hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed there is nothing here a European buyer can check. 3
The Skeptic
The captured pages give no information on where message content or metadata is hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, or any subprocessor; the Spark AI page documents who decides about content sent to the assistant but I found no location information. With hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed, this sits at the bottom for this buyer. 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
The only pricing-adjacent fact in the captured pages is that a single brand colour sits on the Enterprise plan; we found no public information on any per-user price, billing period, tier boundary, history limit or VAT treatment. An annual invoice for a given headcount cannot be computed from anything shown. 3
The Security Officer
We found no public prices at all: no per-user figure, no billing period, no plan comparison. The only tier boundary visible is that a single brand colour arrives on the Enterprise plan, so computing an annual invoice for any headcount is entirely a sales conversation. 3
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public prices at all: no per-user figure, no billing period, no storage or history limits, and the only tier boundary visible is a note that a single brand colour belongs to the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on where retention control, single sign-on or compliance export sits among the plans, let alone at what price. Computing an annual invoice from public pages is out of the question here. 3
The Compliance Counsel
The only captured pricing fact is that a single brand colour is reserved to the Enterprise plan; we found no public per-user prices, tier boundaries, billing periods, VAT treatment or guest-user costs. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from these pages. 3
The Platform Engineer
I found no public prices at all; the only pricing-adjacent fact captured is that a single brand colour arrives on the Enterprise plan. There is no per-user figure anywhere, so a buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from public pages. 3
The Skeptic
The only pricing signal anywhere in the captured pages is that a single brand colour sits on the Enterprise plan — a tier named without a price. I found no public per-user figure, billing period, history limit or VAT treatment, so no annual invoice can be computed from the published pages. 3
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Talkspirit
Is Talkspirit European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Talkspirit is based.
Where does Talkspirit store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026.
Does Talkspirit have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 27 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Talkspirit?
As of 27 Oct 2026, the panel rates Element (3.5/5), Mattermost (3.5/5) and Stackfield (3/5) highest among the other 23 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: Talkspirit alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 27 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (support.talkspirit.com/en/communication/managing-a-chat-room, support.talkspirit.com/en/getting-started/search-posts-files-and-messages, support.talkspirit.com/en/administration-security, support.talkspirit.com/en/administration-security/password-security-policy, support.talkspirit.com/en/administration-security/export-your-organisations-data-as-an-administrator, support.talkspirit.com/en/communication/archive-a-group and 2 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. 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
- 1 integrations 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 product 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
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Retention, discovery & co-determination — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Retention, discovery & co-determination — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap support.talkspirit.com Checked 27 Oct 2026 Details →