Knowledge Base & Wiki
Guru
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Guru Technologies, Inc. · www.getguru.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.
Guru at a glance
- Vendor
- Guru Technologies, 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 Guru 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Guru — from Guru Technologies, Inc., whose stated address is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — is a knowledge platform the bench scored highest on knowledge governance, at 7 to 9. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 1 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Guru — from Guru Technologies, Inc., whose stated address is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — is a knowledge platform the bench scored highest on knowledge governance, at 7 to 9. The captured pages document scheduled expert review cycles with expiration, ownership and policy enforcement, stale and duplicate content flagged automatically, a vendor-stated 80-90% of verification handled automatically, and SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA and GxP named. Search is the other strength — permission-aware across 100-plus connected sources, citations on every answer, delivered in Slack, Teams, a browser extension and, via an MCP server, into ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Cursor — though authoring and search scored 6 to 7, the editor described only as rich formatting. The weaknesses cluster at the bottom: sovereignty scored 1 to 2 (the pages state no hosting location, name no subprocessors and show no EU residency option; a US entity leaning on the EU-U.S., UK and Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework), portability and hosting 2 to 3 (no public information on export, migration out or self-hosting), and pricing transparency 0 to 1. Publishing and integrations is a flat 6.
Speaks for it
- Knowledge governance scored 7 to 9 on verification workflows with expiration, ownership and policy enforcement, with the vendor stating roughly 80-90% of verification is handled automatically.
- Permission-aware search across 100-plus connected sources puts citations on every answer and honours each user's existing permissions.
- SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, granular role-based access, IP whitelisting and centralised audit logs are all stated, and access control scored 7 to 8.
- An MCP server lets ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Cursor pull the same governed knowledge with the same permissions and citations.
- SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA and GxP are named as certifications, with encryption in transit and at rest.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 1 to 2 — the captured pages state no hosting location, name no subprocessors and show no EU residency option, and the contracting entity's address is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
- Portability and hosting scored 2 to 3, with no public information on a full export in an open format, data return on cancellation or any self-hosted edition.
- The captured pages give different descriptions of AI training — 'Your data never trains our AI models' on one, a model 'privately trained in your Guru instance based on your team's data and interactions' on another.
- Publishing and integrations scored a flat 6, with no public information on a branded help centre, custom domain or multilingual publishing.
- The pricing page publishes no per-seat prices, offering a package built around your scale, knowledge complexity, and AI maturity.
Best for
- You need to keep a large internal knowledge base verified — scheduled expert review cycles and automated verification are the highest-scored area, at 7 to 9.
- You want one permission-aware search over existing sources such as Drive, SharePoint, Slack, CRM and Confluence, with 'no content migration required'.
- Your team gets answers inside Slack, Teams, a browser extension or AI tools such as ChatGPT and Claude rather than on a public help site.
- You depend on SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning and audit logs, and need AI answers that respect existing permissions.
Avoid if
- Your regulator or customer contract requires EU data residency or a named subprocessor chain — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your audience is external customers on your own domain — delivery is documented into internal work tools, and publishing and integrations scored a flat 6.
- You need a documented exit path — the model shown connects sources rather than migrating them, and portability and hosting scored 2 to 3.
- You must compute an annual cost from public pages — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Editor, structure & search | 3 of 5 |
| Verification, ownership & freshness | 4 of 5 |
| Permissions, SSO & administration | 4 of 5 |
| Help-center publishing & integrations | 3 of 5 |
| Import, export & self-hosting | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
Verification, ownership & freshness
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the content stays true: page owners or experts named per page, verification with a review date and a reminder when it lapses, approval or publishing workflows with drafts and reviewers, read confirmations for mandatory pages, analytics on views, searches without a result and stale pages, duplicate detection, archiving rules, and an audit trail of who changed and approved what.
0 — No way to see who owns a page or when it was last checked beyond the edit date.
3 — Page history and last-edited dates; owners, verification, approvals and content analytics are basic or not described.
5 — An owner or verifier per page, a review interval with reminders, a draft and publish step, page view statistics, and archived pages kept out of search.
8 — Approval workflows with several reviewers, read confirmations for mandatory pages, analytics on failed searches and stale content, duplicate or outdated content flagged automatically, and an exportable audit trail of changes and approvals.
10 — Governance that a regulated organisation runs on: controlled documents with versioned approvals that meet a named standard (ISO 9001, GxP), expiry and review enforced per space, knowledge gaps reported from searches and AI questions, and every published statement traceable to an approved version.
The Operations Lead
This is the strongest area and exactly what I want for the service hotline: experts validate content with expiration, ownership and policy enforcement, scheduled review cycles route pages to the right keepers, and roughly 80-90 percent of verification runs automatically from usage signals and content age, with stale content flagged, duplicates reconciled and gaps detected. Answers carry sources, lineage and audit logs, and GxP is named as a supported standard; for read confirmations on mandatory pages and whether the audit trail can be exported we found no public information. 1 2 3 4 5
The IT Administrator
This is the strongest area on the captured pages: scheduled expert review cycles with expiration, ownership and policy enforcement, roughly 80 to 90 percent of verification automated with escalation to experts, stale content flagged, deduplication, gap detection, auto-archival, and centralized audit logging with sources and lineage on every answer. GxP, HIPAA and SOC 2 Type II are listed among the certifications, which an auditor takes seriously. We found no public information on read confirmations for mandatory pages or on exporting the audit trail to our SIEM. 2 3 4 5 7
The Support Knowledge Manager
This is the strongest story in the captures: scheduled review cycles route content to the right experts, verification carries expiration, ownership and policy enforcement, roughly 80–90 percent of verification is handled automatically from usage signals with escalation to experts, and stale, duplicate or outdated content is flagged, deduplicated and auto-archived. Search analytics and knowledge health metrics are published, every answer carries sources, lineage and audit logs, and GxP and HIPAA support are claimed. We found no public information on read confirmations for mandatory pages or on exporting the audit trail. 1 2 3 4 5 7
The Engineering Lead
The strongest part: automated verification handling roughly 80–90% of checks through usage signals and policy rules with escalation to experts, SME validation with expiration and ownership, scheduled review cycles, stale and duplicate content flagged automatically, auto-archival, gap detection, centralized audit logs, and GxP named as a compliance target. I found no public information on read confirmations for mandatory pages or on exporting the audit trail, which is what would take it further. 1 2 3 4 5 7
The Quality Manager
This is what I care about most: scheduled review cycles with expiry, ownership and policy enforcement, SME review and approval before content goes live, automated verification of roughly 80 to 90 percent of content, stale and duplicate content flagged automatically, and centralised audit logs, with SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA and GxP named as certifications. Read confirmations for mandatory pages and exportability of the audit trail for the certifier are not described on the captured pages, which is what keeps a regulated shop like ours from running on it sight unseen. 2 4 5 7
The Skeptic
This is the strongest ground: SME validation 'with expiration, ownership, and policy enforcement', scheduled expert review cycles, automated verify and unverify driven by usage and content-age signals, stale and gap detection, deduplication, auto-archival, search and usage analytics, audit logs, and GxP named among the certifications. Read confirmations for mandatory pages are not described, and the claimed '80–90%' automation share is the vendor's own figure — but the workflow itself is documented in unusual detail. 2 3 4 5 7
Permissions, SSO & administration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who may see and edit what, and how the administrator keeps control: roles and permissions per space and per page, restricted or private pages, guest and external access, groups synced from Azure AD/Entra ID, Google Workspace or LDAP, single sign-on (SAML, OIDC), SCIM provisioning, two-factor authentication enforced, an audit log of access and permission changes, and admin controls over sharing and public links. Where the data is hosted and certifications are scored under sovereignty.
0 — Everyone in a workspace sees and edits everything; no permissions of any kind.
3 — Admins, members and guests, or private and shared pages; per-space or per-page rights, SSO and an audit log are basic or not described.
5 — Permissions per space and per page, guest access with limits, single sign-on through Google or Microsoft, two-factor authentication, groups, and admin control over public sharing.
8 — SAML or OIDC single sign-on with any identity provider, SCIM provisioning or LDAP and directory group sync, enforced 2FA, an audit log of views, edits and permission changes, IP or domain restrictions, and permissions honoured by search and AI answers.
10 — Access control an enterprise auditor accepts as documented: granular roles with inheritance explained, just-in-time and external access with expiry, every access and permission change logged and exportable to a SIEM, and the permission model published with its limits.
The Operations Lead
SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, granular role-based control over who views, edits and manages content, IP whitelisting, DLP masking and centralized audit logs are all stated, and — the part I care about most — search and AI answers honour existing permissions, so the workshop sees only what it should. We found no public information on enforced two-factor authentication, guest access limits, or how the audit log breaks down views, edits and permission changes. 2 5 7 8
The IT Administrator
SAML-based single sign-on with SCIM provisioning, granular role-based access over who views, edits and manages content, IP whitelisting, centralized audit logs, and permissions honoured by search and AI answers — users only see what they already have permission to see across every connected source — are all stated. That covers my Entra ID single sign-on requirement directly. We found no public information on enforced two-factor authentication or on syncing directory groups, and the audit log's coverage of permission changes specifically is not detailed. 2 4 5 7 8
The Support Knowledge Manager
SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, granular role-based access, IP whitelisting and centralized audit logs are all stated, and the permission model is honoured by search and AI answers — users only see what they already have permission to see, with HR data sync keeping profiles and permissions current. We found no public information on enforced two-factor authentication, directory group sync by name from Entra ID or Google Workspace, or export of access and permission logs to a SIEM. 2 4 5 7 8
The Engineering Lead
SAML SSO, SCIM provisioning, role-based access with granular view, edit and manage controls, IP whitelisting, HRIS identity sync and centralized audit logs are all on the record, and both search and AI answers explicitly respect what each user may already see. Enforced two-factor authentication is not described on the captured pages, so I stop one step short of the top. 1 2 4 5 7 8
The Quality Manager
SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, granular control over who can view, edit and manage, IP whitelisting, HR-driven identity sync, and search and AI answers that respect permissions across every connected source are all documented, plus centralised audit logs. We found no public information on enforced two-factor authentication or on exporting access and permission logs, so an auditor would still have questions. 2 5 7 8
The Skeptic
SAML SSO, SCIM provisioning, granular role-based access, IP whitelisting, HR-data sync for permissions, and centralized audit logs are stated, and both search and AI answers honour system-level permissions across connected sources — the part most vendors wave at. We found no public information on enforced two-factor authentication, guest or external access, or what the audit log records beyond 'all actions', which keeps this below the top of the range. 2 4 5 7 8
Help-center publishing & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How knowledge reaches people outside the editor: public or password-protected sites and help centers with a custom domain, branding and SEO controls, an in-app widget or contextual help, ticket deflection in a help desk, multilingual publishing, integrations with Slack, Microsoft Teams, Jira, Google Drive, help desks and CRMs, a browser extension, a documented REST or GraphQL API, webhooks, and an MCP server or connector for AI assistants.
0 — Content cannot be shared beyond the editor and nothing connects to it.
3 — Sharing a page by public link and a few integrations such as Slack; a branded help center, an API and webhooks are basic or not described.
5 — A published site or help center with custom domain and branding, integrations with Slack or Teams and Google Drive or Microsoft 365, a documented API, and embeds of common tools.
8 — A help center with SEO controls, multilingual publishing, access for logged-in customers and analytics, a widget or contextual help inside the customer's product, help desk integration with ticket deflection, webhooks, and a connector or MCP server for AI assistants.
10 — Knowledge delivered wherever it is needed from one source: internal and public audiences served from the same pages with per-audience rules, a complete API with SDKs and rate limits stated, a marketplace of integrations, and every channel measured in one report.
The Operations Lead
The integration side is well evidenced: Slack, Teams, a documented API, Zapier, Workato and Prismatic, more than a hundred connectors, and an MCP server through which ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Cursor pull governed knowledge with citations. For the publishing half of this test — a public or branded help center, custom domain, SEO controls, multilingual publishing and webhooks — we found no public information on the captured pages. 2 3 5 6
The IT Administrator
The delivery side is broad: a hundred-plus connectors including Slack, Teams and SharePoint, a browser extension giving contextual answers, a documented API, Zapier, Workato and Prismatic for custom builds, and an MCP server so ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Cursor pull the same governed knowledge with the same permissions and citations. We found no public information on a branded help center with a custom domain, multilingual publishing, webhooks, or help-desk ticket deflection, so the external-audience publishing half of this picture is undocumented. 2 3 5 6
The Support Knowledge Manager
Delivery into work tools is excellent: Slack, Teams, a browser extension with contextual answers, a documented API, 100-plus connectors, and an MCP server so ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Cursor pull the same governed knowledge with the same permissions and citations. But as a support team that must publish a public help center on our own domain for customers in six languages, we found no public information on branded help-center publishing, custom domains, multilingual publishing, webhooks, or help-desk integration with ticket deflection. 2 3 5 6
The Engineering Lead
The integration story is broad: one hundred plus connectors, Slack and Teams, a browser extension, an API to build with, an MCP server that lets ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Cursor pull governed knowledge, and Zapier, Workato and Prismatic for anything missing. I found no public information on help-center publishing with a custom domain, SEO controls or multilingual content, and webhooks are not described, which is exactly how my pipeline would generate pages. 2 3 5 6
The Quality Manager
Slack and Teams integrations, one hundred or more connectors, a documented API, a browser extension with contextual answers, and an MCP server that lets AI tools pull governed knowledge are all shown. We found no public information on publishing to a branded public help centre with a custom domain, multilingual publishing or ticket deflection, which is half of what this criterion asks. 2 3 6
The Skeptic
The integration half is strong: a documented API, an MCP server carrying governed knowledge with the same permissions and citations into ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Cursor, Slack and Teams integrations, a contextual browser extension, and Zapier, Workato and Prismatic for anything not listed. For reaching people outside the editor, however, we found no public information on a published help-center site, custom domain, SEO or multilingual publishing, so I cannot tell a customer-facing channel story from these pages. 2 3 5 6
Import, export & self-hosting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What arriving and leaving would cost: import from Confluence, Notion, Google Docs, Word and Markdown with structure, attachments and links kept, a full export of every space in an open format (Markdown, HTML, XML, PDF) with attachments and history, an API that reaches all content, a stated migration path from Confluence Server or Data Center, open-source code under a named licence, and a self-hosted or on-premise edition with its own documentation.
0 — Content cannot be imported or exported; it can only be read in the vendor's interface.
3 — Single pages export to PDF or Word and some files can be imported; a full export, a Confluence import and self-hosting are basic or not described.
5 — Import from Confluence or Notion and from Word or Markdown, a full workspace export to Markdown or HTML with attachments, a documented API covering pages, and a stated retention of data after cancellation.
8 — A Confluence migration tool or service that keeps hierarchy, permissions and attachments, a full export with history in an open format, a self-hosted or on-premise edition with installation and update documentation, and data returned or deleted on termination under stated terms.
10 — The customer owns the content end to end: open-source code under a named licence that runs fully self-hosted with feature parity stated, a complete export another tool can import without loss, and the deletion of every copy on termination documented.
The Operations Lead
The architecture is connect-rather-than-migrate — Drive, SharePoint, Slack, CRM and Confluence are connected with 'no content migration required' — the vendor states all content and data is the customer's, and an API is offered to build on. Beyond that we found no public information on a full export in open formats, a stated Confluence migration path, data retention after cancellation, or any self-hosted edition, so what leaving would cost is an open question. 5 6 8
The IT Administrator
The documented answer to arriving is a Confluence connector marketed as requiring no content migration, which the captured page frames as an alternative to moving pages in, and the security page states all of the team's content and data is the customer's, not Guru's. We found no public information on a full export format, a migration path from Confluence Server or Data Center, retention after cancellation, or any self-hosted or on-premise edition — the edition my works council or regulator could demand. For a tenant of a closing Confluence Server instance, the leaving path and the hosting path are the gaps. 5 6 8
The Support Knowledge Manager
The captured pages describe Confluence only as a live source connector with "no content migration required", an API to build with, and the statement that all content and data is the customer's, not Guru's. We found no public information on import tooling, a full export in an open format, data return or deletion on cancellation, or any self-hosted or on-premise edition — the leaving cost is unpriced and undescribed. 5 6 8
The Engineering Lead
Guru connects to Confluence, Drive, SharePoint, Slack and CRM systems as sources with no content migration required, an API exists, and the security pages state the team's content and data is ours, not Guru's. I found no public information on a full export in an open format, imports from Notion, Word or Markdown, or any self-hosted edition — after two tool moves I cannot compute what leaving would cost. 5 6 8
The Quality Manager
What the pages show is an API to build with, connectors that bring Drive, SharePoint and Confluence content into one index, and a statement that all of the team's content and data belongs to the customer. We found no public information on a full export in an open format, a Confluence migration path, data return or deletion on termination, or any self-hosted edition, so what leaving would cost is unknown to a buyer. 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Arriving is covered by federation — connect Drive, SharePoint, Slack, CRM and Confluence with 'no content migration required' — plus an API, and the security page states all content and data is the customer's, not Guru's. What leaving would cost is the problem: we found no public information on a full export and what it contains, a stated migration path, a self-hosted or on-premise edition, an open-source licence, or retention terms after cancellation. 5 6 8
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where pages, attachments and search indexes are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, CDN, search, email, support, payment, and the AI model provider that reads pages for answers and summaries, with whether content is used for training). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; a wiki holds internal processes, customer data and trade secrets, so the whole chain counts, not only the database. A self-hosted 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 data residency available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (CDN, search, email, support, AI model) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard, or EU residency is limited to the higher tiers.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations including the AI model provider, no training on customer content stated, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated — or a self-hosted edition documented that keeps every page on the customer's own servers.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor including AI, 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 Operations Lead
The contracting entity is Guru Technologies, Inc. of Philadelphia, and on the captured pages we found no public information on where pages, attachments and search indexes are hosted or on the subprocessor chain, including the AI model provider. The GDPR badge, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification, SOC 2 and the statement that customer data never trains their AI models are the only commitments bearing on Europe we could see — no EU data residency option appears on these pages. 5 7 8
The IT Administrator
The contracting entity's address is 111 S Independence Mall E, Philadelphia, and the privacy page leans on the EU-U.S., UK and Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework — a safeguard, but a US processor under the DPF is not what my regulator means by sovereignty. GDPR, SOC 2 Type II, encryption at rest and in transit, and a statement that customer data never trains the AI models and is not retained by third-party LLMs are published. We found no public information on hosting locations, a subprocessor list including the AI model provider, an EU data residency option, or a published data processing agreement on the captured pages. 1 5 7 8
The Support Knowledge Manager
The contracting entity is Guru Technologies, Inc. of Philadelphia, and the captured pages state no hosting location, no subprocessor list and no EU residency option; GDPR and Data Privacy Framework participation are claimed, along with SOC 2 Type II, encryption, and the commitment that our data never trains or is retained by third-party LLMs. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, on where pages, attachments and search indexes are stored, or on the AI model provider behind answers — for a Dutch customer that gap decides the verdict. 1 5 7 8
The Engineering Lead
The contracting entity is Guru Technologies, Inc. at a Philadelphia address, and I found no public information on hosting location, EU data residency or the subprocessor chain; GDPR and Data Privacy Framework claims, encryption, and a promise that customer data never trains or is retained by third-party LLMs are the only safeguards on the record. For a Berlin fintech that is not enough to place runbooks and trade secrets here. 1 5 7 8
The Quality Manager
The contracting entity's stated address is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the captured pages state no hosting location and name no subprocessors; we found no public information on a data processing agreement or EU residency for pages and search indexes. GDPR, participation in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, encryption in transit and at rest, and a promise that customer data never trains AI models are stated, but none of it establishes a European chain. 1 5 7 8
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is an American company at an address in Philadelphia, and Data Privacy Framework participation is itself a mechanism for transferring personal data to the United States; GDPR, encryption and zero data retention are claimed, but the AI model provider behind those promises is never named or located. The captured pages also describe AI training differently — 'Your data never trains our AI models' on one page, a model 'privately trained in your Guru instance based on your team's data and interactions' on another — and we found no public information on hosting location, EU data residency, a subprocessor list, a data processing agreement, or a self-hosted edition that would put the chain on our own servers. 1 5 7 8
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 user and tier, readers or guests free or charged, minimum seats, which features (SSO, SCIM, audit log, verification, help-center publishing, custom domain, AI answers, EU data residency) cost extra, the free tier and its limits, storage limits, the self-hosted edition's licence and support price, minimum term and setup or migration fees.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with users, readers or features is unclear.
5 — Tiers are public with their price per user and main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, AI, readers or guests, EU residency, the self-hosted edition) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (editors, readers, guests, storage), add-ons priced, the self-hosted edition's licence and support cost stated, minimum seats, term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of editors and readers and a feature set, with every add-on, AI credit, setup, migration and support fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.
The Operations Lead
The pricing page publishes no per-seat figures at all; it invites a package 'built around your scale, knowledge complexity, and AI maturity', so every customer is a sales conversation and I cannot begin to compute what 180 people or read-only access for the workshop would cost. We found no public information on tier prices, a free tier, reader or guest charges, storage limits, minimum terms or setup and migration fees. 1 7
The IT Administrator
The pricing page offers a custom package built around scale, knowledge complexity and AI maturity, with no published per-seat price, and the contact route captured is talk to sales; the only free item on the captured pages is templates. I cannot compute an annual cost for 900 staff from public pages, and no tier inclusions, seat minimums, storage limits or self-hosted licence terms are priced anywhere I read. 1 7
The Support Knowledge Manager
The pricing page publishes no per-seat prices and describes a custom package built around scale, knowledge complexity and AI maturity, with a talk-to-sales channel and bundled expert services; the only free item we found is free content templates, and we found no public information on a free tier, seat minimums or which features cost extra. A buyer cannot compute any annual cost from the captured pages. 1 7
The Engineering Lead
The pricing page publishes no per-seat price and pitches a custom package built around your scale, knowledge complexity and AI maturity — so every real cost is a sales call. I cannot compute an annual number for my forty editors from anything captured; the only free thing shown is templates. 1 7
The Quality Manager
The pricing page offers a package built around scale, knowledge complexity and AI maturity, with no per-seat prices published, so a buyer cannot compute any annual cost from public pages alone. Free templates are offered, but we found no public information on tiers, per-user prices, guest or reader charges, storage limits, or what single sign-on, verification or AI features cost extra. 1 7
The Skeptic
The pricing page offers 'a package built around your scale, knowledge complexity, and AI maturity' and publishes no per-seat price, while 'Free Templates' are content rather than a product tier and support runs through 'talk to sales'. A buyer cannot compute any annual cost from these pages — we found no public information on per-user prices, reader or guest charges, seat minimums, storage limits, or which of SSO, SCIM, audit logs, AI answers or data residency cost extra. 1 7
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 Guru
Is Guru European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Guru as Rest of world.
Where does Guru store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
Does Guru have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Guru?
As of 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Document360 (3.5/5), BookStack (3/5) and XWiki (3/5) highest among the other 13 Knowledge Base & Wiki 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 Document360 (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: Guru 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.
- Weak sourcing — Hosting options. 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.
- 13 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
- 11 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
- 6 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
- 5 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
- 3 pricing 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 data 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 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Features page (how it works) www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Features page (knowledge verification) www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Features page (AI enterprise search) www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations page www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Pricing page www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Security page www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 API documentation developer.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Privacy policy www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Terms of service www.getguru.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →