IT Service Management
Freshservice
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Freshworks Inc. · www.freshworks.com
Compare with TOPdesk → 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.
Freshservice at a glance
- Vendor
- Freshworks Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Freshservice 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Freshservice is a cloud IT service management product from Freshworks Inc of San Mateo, California. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 2 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Freshservice is a cloud IT service management product from Freshworks Inc of San Mateo, California. The bench found it strongest on deployment and integration, with scores from 4 to 6, clustering at 5: the captured pages document a version 2.0 REST API with OAuth and per-plan rate limits (100 to 500 requests a minute from Starter to Enterprise), and single sign-on over SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect with in-product guides for Okta, ADFS, Azure AD and OneLogin. Service desk sits at 4 with no spread and the self-service portal at 3 to 4, resting on broad intake and a branded portal; we found no public information on SLAs, assignment queues or a service catalog. Change and problem and assets and CMDB both score 0 with no spread: no public information on change types, problem records, a CMDB or asset inventory. Sovereignty runs 0 to 2 — we found no public information on data residency, subprocessors or a data processing agreement. The judges' scores show no material divergence; the low marks reflect absent public information rather than differing readings.
Speaks for it
- Documented REST API version 2.0 with OAuth, HTTPS-only requests, per-plan rate limits and a 60-day notice for breaking changes.
- Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect, with in-product guides for Okta, ADFS, Azure AD and OneLogin.
- Wide ticket intake — email, portal, phone, chat, Slack, MS Teams, chatbot, plus PagerDuty and AWS CloudWatch alerts — with attachments up to 40 MB.
- Branded portals with custom SSL certificates, domain-restricted signup and per-portal login policies, managed from one admin centre.
- An unresolved-tickets report in analytics, with reporting-duration limits that differ by plan.
Held against it
- We found no public information on change management, problem records, a change calendar or release management.
- We found no public information on an asset inventory, discovery, licence tracking or a configuration management database.
- We found no public information on SLAs with escalation, assignment queues, business hours or an agent knowledge base.
- We found no public information on data residency, subprocessors or a data processing agreement for a vendor-run cloud service from Freshworks Inc of San Mateo, California.
- We found no public prices, with the Starter, Growth, Pro and Enterprise plan names appearing only in the API rate-limit table.
Best for
- You need a cloud service desk with wide intake — email, portal, phone, chat, Slack, MS Teams, chatbot and monitoring alerts — for your IT team's ticket handling.
- You want a documented REST API (version 2.0, OAuth, published rate limits) to connect the service desk to your own tooling.
- You use Azure AD, Okta, OneLogin or ADFS for identity and need SSO with per-portal login policies across multiple portals.
Avoid if
- You must evidence change management, problem records or a configuration management database to auditors or regulators.
- Your data protection officer needs published hosting locations, subprocessors and a data processing agreement before staff and device data can be signed off.
- You run a managed service provider and need documented client-data separation, time and contract billing or RMM connectors.
The scores
Service desk, incidents & requests
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How tickets come in and get resolved: intake by email, portal, chat, phone and Microsoft Teams or Slack, incidents and service requests told apart, categories, priorities and an impact-urgency matrix, assignment rules and queues, SLAs with escalation and business hours, major incidents, templates and canned responses, a knowledge base for agents, automations and workflows, time tracking on tickets, and reports and dashboards on volume, resolution time and SLA compliance.
0 — Not a ticketing or service desk product; requests cannot be recorded and worked in it.
3 — Tickets from email and a web form with status, priority and assignment; SLAs, automation and reporting are basic or not described.
5 — Multi-channel intake (email, portal, chat or Teams), incidents and service requests told apart, assignment rules and queues, SLAs with escalation and business hours, an agent knowledge base, rule-based automations, and standard reports on volume, resolution time and SLA compliance.
8 — A visual workflow builder for any ticket type, major incident handling with communication to affected users, SLAs per service, customer and contract, skills- or load-based routing, time tracking on tickets, AI suggestions or classification with what they do stated, custom dashboards and scheduled reports, and a mobile app for agents.
10 — A service desk an organisation of thousands runs on: every workflow, form and SLA configurable without code and versioned, omnichannel intake with one history per requester, AI features documented with their data use and limits, operational level agreements and underpinning contracts tracked, and every report reproducible from an exportable ticket history.
The Service Desk Lead
The API documentation lists ticket intake from email, portal, phone, chat, chatbot, Slack and Microsoft Teams plus alert sources like PagerDuty and AWS CloudWatch, and the analytics pages describe an unresolved-tickets report whose reporting limits differ by plan. We found no public information on incidents versus service requests, SLA escalation and business hours, assignment queues or an agent knowledge base, which is exactly what my Monday-morning email pile needs. 1 2 3
The MSP Owner
Tickets demonstrably arrive through a wide set of channels — email, portal, phone, chat, Slack, MS Teams, chatbot, plus CloudWatch and PagerDuty alerts — and the analytics module reports an unresolved-tickets metric with usage limits that differ by plan. Beyond intake and that one metric, we found no public information on SLAs with escalation and business hours, assignment rules and queues, an agent knowledge base or automation in the captured pages, so I sit this just above basic ticketing rather than at a fully described service desk. 1 2
The Change & Configuration Manager
Intake is broad: the API documentation lists email, portal, phone, chat, Slack, Microsoft Teams, chatbot, walk-up and alert sources among the ways a ticket arrives, and the analytics pages describe an unresolved-tickets metric grouped by week or month. We found no public information on how incidents and service requests are told apart, on SLAs with escalation, assignment queues, an agent knowledge base or automations, so the evidence rises above basic intake but falls short of a complete service desk picture. 1 2
The Municipal IT Lead
Ticket intake is documented across many channels — email, portal, phone, chat, chatbot, Slack, MS Teams and walk-up are listed ticket sources, with attachments up to 40 MB — and analytics include an unresolved-tickets metric with reporting limits that differ by plan. We found no public information on SLAs with escalation, assignment rules and queues, an agent knowledge base, or automations, so the evidence sits between basic ticketing and a fully described service desk. 1 2
The Solo IT Admin
Intake is genuinely wide — the API lists email, portal, phone, chat, Slack, MS Teams and a chatbot as ticket sources, which is exactly the email-and-Teams-to-tickets flow I want, and there is an unresolved-tickets report with limits that vary by plan. We found no public information on SLAs, business hours, assignment rules, queues or an agent knowledge base, so I can't take it past solid multi-channel ticketing. 1 2
The Skeptic
The API documentation lists ticket intake from email, portal, phone, chat, Slack, MS Teams, a chatbot and monitoring feeds like PagerDuty and AWS CloudWatch, and an analytics article documents an unresolved-tickets metric with plan-dependent reporting duration limits. What the captured pages never show me is incidents told apart from service requests, and I found no public information on SLAs with escalation, assignment queues, an agent knowledge base or automation — a long source list alone does not make a service desk. 1 2 3
Change, problem & release management
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The ITIL processes behind the ticket: problem records linked to incidents with root cause and known errors, change requests with standard, normal and emergency types, risk and impact assessment, approvals and a change advisory board, a change calendar with blackout periods, release and deployment records, links between changes, problems, incidents and configuration items, process certifications (PinkVERIFY, PeopleCert/AXELOS) named with their scope, and audit trails that a regulated buyer can show an auditor.
0 — No change or problem management of any kind; only tickets.
3 — A change or problem ticket type with a status and an approval step; change types, risk, calendar and links to incidents are basic or not described.
5 — Problem records linked to incidents with root cause and known errors, change requests with standard, normal and emergency types, multi-step approvals, a change calendar, changes linked to incidents and configuration items, and an audit trail of who approved what.
8 — Risk and impact assessment that reads affected services from the CMDB, a CAB workflow with agenda and decisions recorded, blackout periods and collision detection on the change calendar, release management with deployment tasks, change templates for standard changes, and an ITIL process certification named with the processes it covers.
10 — Change and problem management a regulated organisation can be audited on: every process configurable and versioned, change success and failure rates reported, a full trail from incident through problem and change to release exportable, the mapping to ISO/IEC 20000, ITIL 4 or DORA requirements documented, and certifications published with their scope and date.
The Service Desk Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on problem records, change requests, change types, approvals, a change calendar or a change advisory board in any of the captured pages; the API documentation and the analytics article describe tickets only. 1 2
The MSP Owner not rated — no public information
I found no public information on change, problem or release management — no change types, approvals, problem records, change calendar or audit trail appear in the captured pages. The API documentation, the analytics article and the domain-access article I read carry nothing on this; a regulated client could not be shown anything from these pages. 1 2 3
The Change & Configuration Manager not rated — no public information
We found no public information on change management, problem records, release management, change advisory boards, change calendars or audit trails on the captured pages. For a bank answering to BaFin and DORA that is the core of my evaluation, and the API documentation and help-centre articles I read — ticket objects, sources and metrics — contain nothing on change types, approvals or links between problems, incidents and configuration items. 1 2 3
The Municipal IT Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on change or problem management: the captured API documentation and support articles cover ticket intake sources, single sign-on, domain restrictions and portal administration, with no mention of problem records, change types, approvals, a change calendar or release records. 1 2
The Solo IT Admin not rated — no public information
We found no public information on change or problem management — change types, approvals, a change calendar, problem records or release management — in the ticket API, reporting and admin settings pages I read. I'd never run an ITIL project anyway, so this one is for the auditors, and there is nothing here for them. 1 2 3
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
I found no public information on change requests, problem records, release management, a change calendar or any ITIL process certification in the pages captured for this review. The API documentation and the analytics article I read describe tickets, attachments and reporting metrics only. 1 2
Assets, CMDB & discovery
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the product knows about the things tickets are about: an asset inventory of hardware, software and licences, a CMDB with configuration item types, attributes and relationships, a service map or dependency view, agent-based or agentless discovery, imports and synchronisation from Active Directory, Entra ID, Intune, SCCM, JAMF or a discovery tool, software licence compliance, contracts, warranties and the asset life cycle, and assets linked to users, tickets and changes.
0 — No asset or configuration data at all; tickets cannot be linked to devices or services.
3 — A list of assets with basic fields that can be linked to a ticket; relationships, discovery and licences are basic or not described.
5 — An asset inventory of hardware and software, a CMDB with configurable CI types and relationships, network discovery or an inventory agent, an import or sync from Active Directory or Entra ID, contracts and warranties per asset, and assets linked to users, tickets and changes.
8 — A visual service and dependency map used for impact analysis, discovery documented for named platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux, network devices, cloud accounts), connectors to named sources (Intune, SCCM, JAMF, VMware, AWS, Azure), software licence compliance and metering, the full asset life cycle from purchase to disposal, and data quality rules for the CMDB.
10 — A CMDB an organisation can trust for audits and outages: a documented data model with reconciliation of several sources, CI history and change tracking, service models from business service to infrastructure, licence optimisation for named vendors, and every CI and relationship exportable and reachable by API.
The Service Desk Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on an asset inventory, configuration items and relationships, discovery, or synchronisation from Active Directory or Entra ID; the captured API and analytics pages cover tickets, attachments and reporting only. 1 2
The MSP Owner not rated — no public information
I found no public information on asset inventory, a CMDB, discovery or licence compliance in the captured pages; the API material covers tickets, attachments and accounts rather than devices or configuration items. For my sixty clients' device fleets, nothing here tells me whether tickets can even be linked to an asset. 1 5
The Change & Configuration Manager not rated — no public information
We found no public information on an asset inventory, a configuration management database, service dependency maps, discovery or licence compliance on the captured pages. As the person who must read change risk from system dependencies, I can credit none of it from the API and help-centre pages captured here. 1 2 3
The Municipal IT Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on an asset inventory or a configuration management database: the captured pages describe ticket objects, single sign-on and portal administration, and Active Directory appears only as an identity provider for login, not as a source of device or licence data. 1 6
The Solo IT Admin not rated — no public information
We found no public information on asset or configuration management — inventory, discovery, Active Directory or Entra ID imports, licence compliance, warranties or contracts — in the ticket API and admin pages captured. On this evidence my untrusted asset spreadsheet stays exactly where it is. 1 5
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on an asset inventory, a configuration management database with relationships, discovery or licence tracking in the captured pages. The API documentation covers tickets, attachments and authentication, and the analytics article covers ticket metrics — nothing ties a ticket to a device, service or licence in what I read. 1 2
Self-service portal & service catalog
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What employees or clients see: a self-service portal with the service catalog, request forms with fields and approvals per service, ticket status and history for the requester, a searchable knowledge base for end users, announcements and outage notices, a virtual agent or chatbot, password reset or other automated fulfilment, branding and languages, single sign-on for the portal, access from Teams or a mobile app, and satisfaction surveys.
0 — No portal or end-user access of any kind; requests can only be emailed or phoned in.
3 — A web portal where users open tickets and see their status; a catalog, knowledge base and approvals are basic or not described.
5 — A branded portal with a service catalog, request forms with approval steps, an end-user knowledge base with search, ticket status and history, announcements, single sign-on, several languages, and satisfaction surveys after resolution.
8 — A service catalog with conditional forms, costs and delivery times per item, automated fulfilment for named requests (password reset, software install, onboarding), a virtual agent in the portal and in Teams or Slack, deflection measured, portals per client or department, and accessibility (WCAG) stated.
10 — A portal that runs as the front door of the organisation: catalog, forms and fulfilment built without code and reused across IT, HR and facilities, the virtual agent documented with its sources and data use, deflection and satisfaction reported per service, and accessibility conformance published with its level.
The Service Desk Lead
The pages prove a branded portal with configurable name, logo and redirect URL, single sign-on over SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect, per-portal login policies, domain-restricted sign-up, a chatbot intake channel and an admin view over multiple accounts and portals. We found no public information on the service catalog, request approvals, an end-user knowledge base, outage announcements or satisfaction surveys, so the portal itself is proven but its catalog story is not. 1 3 4 5 6
The MSP Owner
A web portal exists as a ticket source, supports a custom SSL certificate and single sign-on via SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect, and an organization can run multiple portals with per-portal login policies, names, logos and redirect URLs. We found no public information on the service catalog, request approvals, an end-user knowledge base, announcements or satisfaction surveys, so this reads as a portal for raising and tracking tickets rather than a described self-service front door. 1 4 5 6 7
The Change & Configuration Manager
A real employee portal is proven: users log in, sign up and create tickets there, the portal is a named ticket source, portal access is secured by SSL configuration, and an admin centre manages several portals each with their own login policies. We found no public information on a service catalog, request forms with approvals, an end-user knowledge base, announcements or satisfaction surveys. 1 3 4 5
The Municipal IT Lead
A service desk portal is documented — portal is a ticket source, custom SSL certificates are configurable for it, and an organization can hold multiple accounts and portals with per-portal login policies, names, redirect URLs and logos. We found no public information on a service catalog, request forms with approvals, an end-user knowledge base, announcements or satisfaction surveys. 1 4 5
The Solo IT Admin
A real end-user portal exists: it is a documented ticket source with its own SSL certificate setup and branded login page, single sign-on via SAML and OpenID Connect is documented for Azure AD, Okta and OneLogin, and the admin centre manages multiple portals with per-portal login policies, plus a chatbot listed as a source. We found no public information on the service catalog, request approvals, an end-user knowledge base or satisfaction surveys, so I can point people at a portal but can't confirm the answers live in it. 1 4 5 6 7
The Skeptic
A service desk portal exists: users sign up, log in and create tickets through it, a custom SSL certificate is configurable for its domain, and the admin console manages multiple portals per organisation with customisable names, logos and login policies. I found no public information in the captured pages on a service catalog, request approvals, an end-user knowledge base, announcements or satisfaction surveys — what is documented about the portal is largely its domain and certificate configuration. 1 3 4 5
Deployment, integrations & multi-client operation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the product is run and connected: a cloud edition and an on-premise or open-source edition with feature parity stated, system requirements and update cadence, a documented REST API and webhooks, integrations with Microsoft 365, Teams, Entra ID, Slack, monitoring tools, RMM and remote support tools, single sign-on (SAML, OIDC) and SCIM, roles and permissions, multi-client or multi-tenant operation with separated data for MSPs, time and contract billing for MSPs, a migration path from other tools, and a public status page.
0 — No documented way to run, connect or administer the product.
3 — Runs as one edition with user roles and an email connection; the API, integrations and other editions are basic or not described.
5 — A documented REST API, integrations with Microsoft 365, Teams and Entra ID or Active Directory, single sign-on, role-based permissions, at least one monitoring or remote support integration, and either an on-premise edition or a stated hosting model with uptime terms.
8 — Cloud and on-premise or open-source editions with feature parity stated, webhooks and an integration marketplace, SCIM provisioning, multi-tenant operation with separated client data for MSPs, time and contract billing, named RMM and monitoring connectors, a documented migration from named tools, and a public status page with uptime history.
10 — Operation at scale and on the customer's terms: open-source code under a named licence or a self-hosted edition with full parity, configuration as code or a staging-to-production transport documented, an API covering every object, high availability and disaster recovery documented, and SLA and support terms published.
The Service Desk Lead
The REST API v2 is documented thoroughly — OAuth, full CRUD, JSON over HTTPS, rate limits per plan, 60 days' notice for breaking changes — Microsoft Teams and Slack appear as ticket sources, alerts arrive from PagerDuty and AWS CloudWatch, and single sign-on with Okta, ADFS, Azure AD and OneLogin has in-product guides alongside admin-level security policies. We found no public information on an on-premise edition, webhooks, SCIM, or uptime and hosting terms; the pages mention a pending Cloudflare migration for portal reliability but no commitments. 1 4 5 6 7
The MSP Owner
The REST API is properly documented — version 2.0, CRUD operations, OAuth, rate limits published per plan, a 60-day notice for breaking changes — and single sign-on via SAML and OpenID Connect is documented against Azure AD, Okta, OneLogin and ADFS, with CloudWatch and PagerDuty appearing as alert sources. What I need as a managed service provider — separated client data, time and contract billing, RMM connectors, SCIM provisioning, an on-premise edition or uptime terms — we found no public information on; an MSP edition is named in passing in the API material but is not described. 1 5 6 7
The Change & Configuration Manager
A documented version 2.0 REST API with CRUD operations, OAuth and API-key authentication, pagination and per-plan rate limits, plus single sign-on over both SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect with guides for Okta, ADFS and Azure AD, is solid public evidence, and ticket sources name Microsoft Teams, Slack, AWS CloudWatch and PagerDuty. We found no public information on an on-premise edition, webhooks, SCIM, multi-tenant operation for service providers or uptime terms. 1 5 6 7
The Municipal IT Lead
The REST API is documented in real depth (version 2.0, CRUD over HTTPS, OAuth and API-key authentication, rate limits per plan, a 60-day deprecation notice), and single sign-on is documented for both SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect with named providers including Azure AD, ADFS, Okta and OneLogin, with alert intake from PagerDuty and AWS Cloudwatch. We found no public information on an on-premise or open-source edition, webhooks, SCIM provisioning, or a stated hosting model with uptime terms, which is what I would need for the municipal data centre. 1 5 6 7
The Solo IT Admin
The API is properly documented — REST v2 with OAuth, rate limits per plan from 100 to 500 requests a minute, and a 60-day notice for breaking changes — and SAML and OpenID Connect single sign-on comes with in-product guides for Okta, ADFS, Azure AD and OneLogin, with MS Teams, Slack, PagerDuty and AWS CloudWatch all listed as ticket sources. The captured pages describe a cloud service, with portals even waiting on a Cloudflare migration, and we found no public information on webhooks, SCIM, an on-premise edition, multi-client data separation or uptime terms. I could wire this into my stack quickly, but everything I read says it runs on the vendor's cloud. 1 4 6 7
The Skeptic
There is a genuine documented REST API version 2.0 with OAuth, CORS, rate limits per named plan and a 60-day deprecation notice, plus SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect single sign-on with guides for Okta, ADFS, Azure AD and OneLogin, and MS Teams, Slack, PagerDuty and AWS CloudWatch appear as ticket sources. I found no public information on an on-premise edition, SCIM provisioning, webhooks or uptime terms — everything captured, down to the pending Cloudflare migration, points to a vendor-run cloud service only. 1 4 5 6 7
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where tickets, attachments, user directories and CMDB data are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, email delivery, AI features, support and payment tools). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; a service desk holds personal data about every employee and often credentials and network details, so the whole chain counts, not only the database. An on-premise or open-source edition the customer runs on its own European servers counts as the customer's chain, whatever the vendor's seat.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.
5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (email delivery, AI features, support access, payment) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard, or the vendor is non-EU with an EU data centre option.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5, SOC 2) stated — or an on-premise edition documented that keeps every record on the customer's own servers.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, or a self-hosted open-source edition with no call home, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.
The Service Desk Lead
The captured pages name Freshworks Inc of San Mateo, California as vendor and copyright holder, and the migration note references Cloudflare infrastructure for the portals. We found no public information on where tickets, attachments or directory data are stored and processed, which subprocessors are involved, or a published data processing agreement; the single comfort is that passwords are not stored. 3 4 6 7
The MSP Owner
Freshworks Inc of San Mateo, California is the entity named on the pages I read, and the service is vendor-run cloud with portals served through the vendor's own infrastructure and a pending Cloudflare migration. We found no public information on where ticket data and attachments are stored, which subprocessors are involved, or a data processing agreement — for employee data across sixty clients, that chain is unproven and it starts outside Europe. 3 4 6 1
The Change & Configuration Manager
The captured pages name Freshworks Inc, a San Mateo, California company, as the entity behind the product, and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or a data processing agreement; the one data-handling fact — passwords are not stored — says nothing about where tickets, directories and attachments are processed. For my BaFin-supervised bank that chain is unproven end to end. 3 6 7
The Municipal IT Lead
The captured pages name Freshworks Inc, a US company, as the entity, and we found no public information on where tickets, attachments, user directories or configuration data are hosted, who the subprocessors are, or a published data processing agreement, nor any documented on-premise or open-source edition. On this evidence my data protection officer cannot sign off staff and device data, and several chain dimensions remain unknown rather than European. 3 6
The Solo IT Admin
The vendor is Freshworks Inc of San Mateo, California, running a cloud service whose portals even await a Cloudflare migration. We found no public information on data residency, hosting locations, subprocessors or a data processing agreement. A service desk holding every employee's details needs a chain I can see, and I can't see this one. 3 4 6
The Skeptic
The entity named on the captured pages is Freshworks Inc of San Mateo, California, so the vendor and copyright holder are non-EU. I found no public information on where tickets and attachments are stored or processed, on any subprocessor, or on a data processing agreement in the captured pages, and no on-premise edition that would keep records on the customer's own European servers appears in what I read. 3 6
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per agent, technician or analyst and tier, whether requesters and portal users are free, what counts as an asset or node and how it is priced, which modules (CMDB, change, asset discovery, AI, ESM) cost extra, the on-premise licence or subscription and its maintenance, the free or open-source edition and paid support, minimum term, onboarding and setup.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free edition exists, but how cost scales with agents, assets or modules is unclear.
5 — Tiers are public with their price per agent and main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (asset packs, CMDB or discovery, AI features, on-premise licence, onboarding) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (agents, assets, clients), add-ons and asset packs priced, the on-premise licence and maintenance or the open-source support plans priced, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of agents, assets and modules, cloud or on premise, with every add-on, setup, training, support and overage fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.
The Service Desk Lead
Four plans — Starter, Growth, Pro, Enterprise — are named publicly with API rate limits and analytics limits differing by plan, but we found no price on any captured page: nothing per agent, nothing for requesters or assets, no module or onboarding figures. The support pages' related articles include "How can I buy more licenses?" with no figures alongside. 1 2 4
The MSP Owner
Four plan names surface only through API rate limits — Starter, Growth, Pro and Enterprise at 100 to 500 requests per minute — with no price attached anywhere, and a licensing article is referenced in support pages but unpriced. I cannot begin to compute what twenty-two technicians across sixty clients would pay; we found no public pricing information in the captured pages. 1 2 4
The Change & Configuration Manager
The only pricing-adjacent facts are a rate-limit table naming Starter, Growth, Pro and Enterprise plans and a help article about buying more licences; we found no public price per agent, no scaling rule for assets or modules, and no edition, onboarding or support costs on any captured page. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from this. 1 4
The Municipal IT Lead
Four plan names — Starter, Growth, Pro and Enterprise — appear publicly in the API rate-limit table, and a support article refers to buying more licenses, but we found no public price per agent, per asset or per module anywhere in the captures. My procurement office cannot put a single figure into a tender from these pages. 1 4
The Solo IT Admin
The only pricing-adjacent facts are a rate-limit table naming Starter, Growth, Pro and Enterprise plans with no prices attached, and a support article titled "How can I buy more licenses?". We found no public information on per-agent prices, a free edition, asset or module costs, minimum terms or onboarding fees. I wanted a price I can read off a page, and I did not find one. 1 4
The Skeptic
Four plan names — Starter, Growth, Pro and Enterprise — show up only in the API rate-limit table, and a support article promises to explain how to buy more licenses. We found no public price figure at all, per agent or otherwise, in the captured pages, so a buyer cannot compute any part of the annual cost from what is published here. 1 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Freshservice
Is Freshservice European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Freshservice as Rest of world.
Where does Freshservice store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
Does Freshservice have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Freshservice?
As of 2 Nov 2026, the panel rates ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus (3.5/5), Xurrent ITSM (3/5) and GLPI (3/5) highest among the other 14 IT Service Management 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 GLPI (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Freshservice alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Nov 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.
- 2 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
- 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 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
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 API documentation api.freshservice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Service desk, incidents & requests — found from sitemap support.freshworks.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Service desk, incidents & requests — found from sitemap support.freshworks.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Self-service portal & service catalog — found from sitemap support.freshworks.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Self-service portal & service catalog — found from sitemap support.freshworks.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Deployment, integrations & multi-client operation — found from sitemap support.freshworks.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Deployment, integrations & multi-client operation — found from sitemap support.freshworks.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →