whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Business Instant Messaging

Zulip

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Kandra Labs, Inc. · zulip.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 Compliance Counsel

Weighted verdict

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

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

Scored by The Compliance Counsel

Channels, threads & search

How this is scored

The daily surface: channel model, threading, mentions, files, and whether search can find a decision made eighteen months ago.

0 — Flat group chats with no threads; search covers recent messages only, and history is capped.

3 — Channels and direct messages with basic search, but threading is awkward or absent and file handling is a plain attachment list.

5 — Public and private channels, real threads, mentions and reactions, file sharing with previews, and full-text search across the whole history.

8 — Cross-organisation or guest channels with clear boundaries, message editing history, pinned and saved items, search with filters by channel, person and date, and a documented history limit or none at all.

10 — The archive is a working knowledge base: search that ranks well across years, threads that stay readable, channel lifecycle management (archive, rename, merge) without losing history, and export of a conversation in a form a human can read.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

Channels with topic-based threading, per-channel permissions, message moving, guests with scoped user-list visibility, and unlimited search history on paid plans give me most of what a court-ready archive surface needs. But the evidence says nothing about message edit history, pins, or search filters by channel, person and date — the things that let me reconstruct who decided what and when — so I cannot put it at the top anchor. 2 3

Report an error

Encryption & access control

How this is scored

What is encrypted and against whom, plus who can reach which room. Judged on documented mechanism, since "encrypted" in this category usually means the vendor holds the keys.

0 — Transport encryption only, undocumented; no role model beyond admin, guests indistinguishable from members.

3 — TLS and encryption at rest with vendor-held keys, basic roles, and guest access that mostly works.

5 — The above plus configurable roles per channel, SSO, guest accounts with scoped visibility, and a clear statement of what the vendor can read.

8 — Optional end-to-end encryption for direct messages or private rooms with the trade-offs named, device verification, session management an admin can revoke, and documented key handling.

10 — End-to-end encryption as a first-class mode — documented or open cryptography, cross-device key management that ordinary users survive, identity verification, and the vendor stating plainly what it cannot decrypt.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

TLS and encryption at rest, granular permissions by channel, role and user group, SSO via SAML/OIDC/Entra, scoped guests, and admin credential revocation are documented and real. What is missing is any end-to-end encryption of messages — the only E2EE claim covers mobile push notification content — and no plain statement of what the vendor can read, which matters when Zulip declares itself the controller of personal data. 2 3

Report an error

Retention, discovery & co-determination

How this is scored

The archive as a legal object: retention policies, export for discovery, audit, and the monitoring features a works council will ask to have switched off.

0 — No retention policy, no export beyond a manual copy, no audit log, and presence or activity analytics that cannot be disabled.

3 — Manual export of some data and a global history limit, but no per-channel retention, no audit log and no admin control over analytics.

5 — Configurable retention per channel or workspace, admin export in a documented format, an audit log of administrative actions, and status or presence that a user can control.

8 — Legal-hold and eDiscovery export including edits and deletions, retention executed per policy and evidenced, full admin audit trail, and activity analytics switchable off organisation-wide.

10 — Built to pass a works agreement and a subpoena on the same day: granular retention with documented deletion, discovery export a lawyer can use, complete audit, and no individual-level productivity scoring anywhere in the product.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

Message retention policies are listed as a Standard-plan feature and organization administrators may export all Zulip data for archival purposes, which is the raw material of a discovery workflow. But the granularity of retention is unstated, there is no evidence the export captures edits and deletions, no legal hold, and — decisive for me — no audit log of administrative actions anywhere in the evidence; silence here means I cannot assume the trail survives the admin. 2 3

Report an error

Deployment & data custody

How this is scored

Whether the customer can hold their own archive: self-hosting, private cloud, open source, federation, and what an exit actually looks like.

0 — Cloud-only, proprietary, with export limited to a partial archive.

3 — Cloud-only, but with a documented full export in an open-ish format.

5 — A private-cloud or dedicated-instance option, or a self-hosted edition that lags the cloud significantly; full export documented.

8 — A genuine self-hosted edition close to feature parity, or open-source core with a documented upgrade path, plus complete export including files and metadata.

10 — Custody is the customer's: open-source or source-available server, self-hosting supported as a first-class deployment, open protocol or federation, and a migration path in and out that the vendor documents rather than resists.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

This is the product's strongest answer to my concerns: a 100% open-source auditable codebase, self-hosting offered as a first-class deployment, and an explicit, vendor-documented two-way path — full export/import between Zulip Cloud and your own servers, plus importers from Slack, Teams, Mattermost and Rocket.Chat. The only gap against the top anchor is any evidence of an open protocol or federation, so I stop just short of 10. 1 2 3

Report an error

Integrations & extensibility

How this is scored

Bots, webhooks, app framework, identity — whether the chat becomes the place work is noticed, and whether that is buildable without a partner agreement.

0 — No API, no webhooks, no bots.

3 — Incoming webhooks and a handful of native integrations; no bot framework, no documented limits.

5 — Documented REST API, incoming and outgoing webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model, and SSO.

8 — A proper app framework with interactive components, event subscriptions with retries, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits and a sandbox.

10 — A platform: versioned API with a deprecation policy, an app directory or plugin system with permissions a customer can audit, and integrations the vendor maintains rather than lists.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

A documented REST API, custom webhooks, SCIM user and group sync, API rate limits, 130+ native integrations and bridges to Slack, Teams and Matrix make the surface buildable without a partner agreement. The evidence is silent on a real app framework with interactive components, a bot account model, and any sandbox or deprecation policy, which keeps it below the platform anchors. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where the archive and its metadata live, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch it. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.

3 — EU data residency offered for message content while metadata, search indexes or support tooling remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.

5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — notifications, AI features, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a self-hosted option that removes the question.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

Kandra Labs, Inc. of San Francisco is the contracting entity, the services are 'hosted and operated in the United States', and the only named subprocessors — Google Analytics and Stripe — are US companies, with no EU residency option offered anywhere in the evidence. The named subprocessors and the EU/UK representatives lift it just above zero, and the open-source self-hosting option lets a determined customer remove the question entirely, but as a cloud buyer I get no European custody. 3 2

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the annual invoice for their headcount — including the retention, compliance and guest features they actually need — from public pages alone.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A per-user headline exists, but the tier where retention control, SSO or compliance export begins is unstated.

5 — Per-user prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed capability (unlimited history, SSO, eDiscovery) sits in an unpriced enterprise tier.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with per-user maths, history and storage limits, feature boundaries, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; self-hosted licensing priced too where offered.

10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given headcount and deployment choice, including guest users, storage and any per-instance licence.

Report an error

The Compliance Counsel

Per-user prices with billing period, storage and search-history limits, and a ten-user minimum are public, and — unusually — the compliance-relevant features are priced: message retention policies sit in Standard at $6.67/user/month and SSO/SCIM/guest controls in Plus at $10. What keeps me below 8 is that VAT treatment is never stated, guest-user billing maths are absent, and AD/LDAP sync and non-standard chat imports are 'please inquire', so the annual invoice is computable only down to those caveats. 2 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency US by default ⚠ unverified 0/3 pts 3 Report an error
Subprocessors US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified 0/2 pts 3 Report an error

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

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

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

Sources (3)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage zulip.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing zulip.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy zulip.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →