AI Meeting Assistants & Notetakers
Fireflies.ai
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Fireflies.AI Corp. · fireflies.ai
Compare with tl;dv → 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.
Fireflies.ai at a glance
- Vendor
- Fireflies.AI Corp.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Fireflies.ai 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Fireflies.ai is an AI meeting notetaker that records, transcribes and summarises meetings. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 5 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 6 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Fireflies.ai is an AI meeting notetaker that records, transcribes and summarises meetings. The bench's strongest area is data control and administration at 7-8: custom data retention, SSO with SCIM, an audit logs API and a super admin role on the Enterprise plan, customer content excluded from model training by default and contractually at vendors, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 stated, and named subprocessors under a zero-day retention policy. Capture and transcription and summaries and knowledge each sit at 7, with bot and botless capture documented but a 95 percent accuracy claim stated overall, never per language. The weakest area is sovereignty, a flat 4: the contracting entity is Fireflies.ai Corp. in the United States, processing runs on servers in the United States and other countries, and the named subprocessors — OpenAI, Assembly.ai, Google Cloud Platform, MongoDB Atlas — are listed as US-based. The widest spread among the judges is pricing transparency, 3-5: the higher scores credit unusually public tier inclusions, the lower ones find no per-seat price from which to compute a year's cost.
Speaks for it
- The Enterprise plan carries SSO with SCIM, custom data retention, an audit logs API, a super admin role and an admin rules engine
- Customer content is excluded from model training by default and vendors are contractually barred from training on it
- All participants must approve before recording on Google Meet, Zoom and Microsoft Teams, with a decline link emailed an hour ahead and mid-meeting pause and leave commands
- A documented GraphQL API with per-plan rate limits, signed webhooks and an MCP server complements native CRM integrations including HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive and Microsoft Dynamics 365
- Both capture paths are documented — a notetaker bot and botless system-audio capture — covering conferencing platforms, phone and dialer calls, WhatsApp and file upload
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 4: the contracting entity is Fireflies.ai Corp. in the United States and processing runs on servers in the United States and other countries
- The public pricing pages state no per-seat figures, so an annual cost cannot be computed from them
- Talk-time and sentiment analytics are sold with no published way to switch them off organisation-wide
- Accuracy is claimed as 95 percent overall, never per language, and the named example languages are English, Spanish and French
- We found no public information on a works-agreement template, DPIA support or an EU AI Act classification
Best for
- You want one assistant that captures meetings both with a bot and botlessly across Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, phone calls and file uploads
- You need an Enterprise governance layer — SSO with SCIM, custom data retention, an audit logs API — with training on customer content contractually excluded
- Your team works out of HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive or Microsoft Dynamics 365 and wants notes pushed there through a documented GraphQL API, webhooks and Zapier
- You shape minutes per team through custom summary templates, workspace defaults and meeting rules, with action items pushed to Asana, Jira or Trello
Avoid if
- You require EU hosting or a European contracting entity: processing is stated on servers in the United States and other countries, and the named subprocessors are listed as US-based
- You must budget before talking to sales: the public pricing pages publish tier inclusions but state no per-seat price
- Your works council will ask for sentiment and talk-time analytics to be disabled organisation-wide — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need assurance of German transcription accuracy: the published claim is one overall 95 percent figure and the examples given are English, Spanish and French
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Recording, transcription & languages | 3.5 of 5 |
| Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations, API & workflow | 4 of 5 |
| Consent, participant rights & works council | 3 of 5 |
| Retention, AI training & administration | 4 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 2 of 5 |
Recording, transcription & languages
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the conversation gets in and how faithfully it is written down: a bot that joins Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet and Webex, botless capture from a desktop or mobile app, in-person meetings and phone calls, file upload, live transcription, speaker identification and names, the languages supported with German stated, meetings that switch language, custom vocabulary for names and jargon, timestamps linked to the recording, and editing of the transcript.
0 — Does not record or transcribe meetings; a note template or agenda tool without capture.
3 — A bot that joins one or two conferencing tools and produces a transcript; languages, speaker names, in-person capture and accuracy are basic or not described.
5 — A bot for Zoom, Teams and Google Meet, a desktop or mobile app for in-person meetings, file upload, speaker identification, German among the supported languages, timestamps linked to the recording, and an editable transcript.
8 — Botless capture documented next to the bot, Webex and phone or dialer calls, live transcription, mixed-language meetings handled, custom vocabulary, speaker names learned across meetings, and the transcription engine or its accuracy per language stated.
10 — Capture a regulated team relies on: every channel above with accuracy published per language and method, dialects and specialist vocabulary documented, on-device or customer-hosted transcription as an option, and how errors are corrected and fed back stated.
The Management Consultant
Bot and botless capture sit side by side: the desktop app records system audio with no bot in the room, auto-detects calls on Zoom, Meet, Teams, WhatsApp and phone calls, and the transcript is editable in the web dashboard afterwards, with mobile apps for in-person conversation and file upload on top. Multi-Language Mode (beta) covers meetings that switch language and a hundred-plus languages are claimed, but we found no public information naming German among them, botless recording labels speakers only as Speaker 1 and 2, and we found no public information on custom vocabulary for client names — accuracy is one overall 95% figure with nothing per language. 1 7 13 14
The Sales Team Lead
Both a bot and a botless Take Notes mode are documented, covering Zoom, Teams, Google Meet and Webex, phone and dialer calls, WhatsApp and FaceTime, with file upload, live transcripts, editable transcripts and 100+ languages including a beta mode for mixed-language meetings. The captured pages state a single 95% accuracy figure rather than accuracy per language, and we found no public information on custom vocabulary or explicitly named German transcription — the examples given are English, Spanish and French. 14 13 1 16 9 11
The Works Council Chair
Bot capture and botless system-audio capture are both documented, alongside phone and dialer calls, file upload, live transcripts and a beta multi-language mode across 100-plus languages. Speaker recognition is documented for the bot, while the botless mode shows speakers only as Speaker 1 and 2. The vendor claims 95% accuracy overall, but we found no per-language accuracy figures, and the captured pages name English, Spanish and French without naming German specifically. 14 13 1 2 7 11
The Data Protection Officer
A named bot and a botless system-audio mode are both documented, covering the major conferencing platforms, phone and dialer calls and file upload, with live transcription, auto-detect, a beta multi-language mode within a claimed 100+ languages, an editable transcript and speaker recognition. We found no public information on custom vocabulary, per-language accuracy or speaker names learned across meetings, German is not named explicitly, and the botless mode labels speakers only as Speaker 1 and 2. 14 13 1 7 9 16
The IT Lead
Both capture paths are documented side by side — the notetaker bot for Zoom, Teams and Google Meet, and botless system-audio capture from the desktop app that also reaches WhatsApp, Aircall, FaceTime, Discord and phone calls — plus in-person recording on mobile, file upload, live transcripts and a beta mode transcribing several languages in one meeting. The transcription engine is named as Assembly.ai with a blanket 95 percent accuracy claim, though we found no public information on accuracy per language or custom vocabulary, and in botless mode speakers appear only as Speaker 1 and Speaker 2. 1 7 9 13 14
The Skeptic
A joining bot sits next to a documented botless system-audio mode, with dialers, phone calls, file upload, live transcripts and a multi-language mode — broad and honestly documented, down to admitting botless mode labels speakers only as Speaker 1 and 2. But the claimed 95% accuracy is stated overall, never per language, the captured language pages name English, Spanish and French but not German, and we found no public information on custom vocabulary or speaker names learned across meetings. The transcription engine is at least named in the trust center as Assembly.ai in the US. 1 13 14 9 11
Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the tool makes of the transcript: summaries and minutes by meeting type with editable templates, decisions and action items with owners and due dates, summaries in the meeting's language or a chosen one, follow-up emails, clips and highlights, search across all meetings, questions answered over the archive with citations back to the transcript passage, shared team folders or channels, and the minutes exported to Word, PDF or a wiki.
0 — No summaries of any kind; only the raw transcript or recording.
3 — One generic summary per meeting; templates, action items, search across meetings and citations are basic or not described.
5 — Summaries with templates per meeting type, action items and decisions extracted, the summary language selectable with German available, search across meetings, questions answered over one or several meetings, and sharing or export of the minutes.
8 — Custom templates per team, action items with owners pushed to task tools, answers that cite and link the transcript passage they rest on, topic or keyword tracking across meetings, team libraries with permissions, and the AI models used for summaries named.
10 — Meeting knowledge a company can audit: every generated statement traceable to its source passage, hallucination handling and human review documented, summary quality by language stated, and the archive queryable through an API or MCP server with the same permissions as in the app.
The Management Consultant
Custom summary templates with my own instructions or sample notes, workspace defaults, per-group templates and meeting rules by title, host, participant or meeting type give me minutes shaped per client engagement, and action items can be pushed to Asana, Jira or Trello. Search across all meetings, questions to the assistant over the archive, soundbites and downloadable summaries are documented. We found no public information on summaries generated in a selectable language, on decisions extracted as their own field, or on answers that cite and link the transcript passage they rest on. 1 2 15 17
The Sales Team Lead
Custom summary templates per team, rules that apply a template by meeting title, host or type, action items, soundbites, time-stamped comments, search across meetings and topic trackers are all documented, with notes pushed to task tools and CRMs through Zapier and webhooks. We found no public information on action items carrying owners and due dates, on answers that cite the transcript passage they rest on, or on minutes exported to Word, PDF or a wiki; the language model provider appears only in the trust center. 15 1 2 7 17 9
The Works Council Chair
Custom summary templates per user group with workspace defaults and meeting rules, action items pushed to Asana, Jira or Trello, topic trackers, soundbites and smart search across meetings are all documented. Answers over the archive exist via Ask Fireflies, but we found no public information on answers that cite and link the transcript passage they rest on, or on export of minutes to Word, PDF or a wiki. 15 1 2 7 16 17
The Data Protection Officer
Custom templates down to user-group and rule-based assignment, action items pushed to task tools, smart search with playback synced to the recording, soundbites, channels, and the LLM provider named in the trust centre give real meeting knowledge. We found no public information on answers that cite and link the transcript passage they rest on, on hallucination handling and human review, or on choosing the summary language. 15 17 7 9 16 2
The IT Lead
Custom summary templates built from written instructions or pasted sample notes can be defaulted for the whole workspace, assigned per user group and applied through meeting rules; action items push to Asana, Jira and Trello, topic trackers and search across meetings exist, and OpenAI is named as the language model behind summaries. We found no public information on answers that cite and link the transcript passage they rest on, on choosing the summary language, or on summary quality by language, which keeps this a notch below the top. 1 2 7 9 15 17
The Skeptic
Custom templates per team with sharing permissions, workspace defaults and meeting rules are documented in detail, and search results play the recording from the matching moment. What I cannot verify: whether the assistant's answers cite the transcript passage they rest on, who owns an action item and by when, and how a hallucinated summary is caught — none of that is documented. The language model behind summaries is at least named in the trust center as OpenAI in the US. 1 15 2 17 9
Integrations, API & workflow
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the notes reach the place where work happens: calendar connection with rules for which meetings are recorded, CRM fields filled from the call (HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Microsoft Dynamics), project and task tools, Slack and Microsoft Teams channels, Notion, Confluence and SharePoint, Zapier, Make or n8n, a documented REST API and webhooks, an MCP server for AI assistants, and browser extensions and native apps.
0 — No integrations and no export; the notes stay in the app.
3 — A calendar connection and an email or Slack summary; CRM, API and task tools are basic or not described.
5 — Google and Microsoft calendars, a native CRM integration (HubSpot or Salesforce), Slack or Teams, a task or wiki tool, Zapier or Make, and a documented API or webhooks.
8 — CRM field mapping per meeting type, several CRMs including Microsoft Dynamics or Pipedrive, a full REST API with webhooks and reference documentation, an MCP server, SharePoint or Confluence export, and recording rules per calendar or meeting type.
10 — An integration layer a company builds on: every object reachable by API with rate limits and versioning stated, granular OAuth scopes, data residency kept across integrations, and the integrations administered centrally with logs.
The Management Consultant
Over a hundred apps including HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive and Microsoft Dynamics 365, Slack channels, Zapier, a documented GraphQL API with rate limits per plan, webhooks with signing, and an MCP server for Claude and ChatGPT — the notes reach the systems where the work happens. Meeting and template rules can be set by meeting conditions, and an admin rules engine controls meeting access and privacy. We found no public information on SharePoint or Confluence export or on CRM field mapping per meeting type. 4 5 7 18 22
The Sales Team Lead
HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive and Microsoft Dynamics 365 are among a long list of native CRM integrations with notes and call logs auto-filled, Slack and task tools are covered, and there is a documented GraphQL API with per-plan rate limits, signed webhooks, Zapier, a realtime API and an MCP server. We found no public information on CRM field mapping per meeting type or export to SharePoint or Confluence — the fine-grained HubSpot field control my team would rely on is not shown at that level. 18 2 7 4 17 5
The Works Council Chair
HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive and Microsoft Dynamics 365 sit in a long CRM list, next to a documented GraphQL API with published rate limits per plan, webhooks with signing, an MCP server for Claude and Cursor, Zapier, Slack and native desktop and mobile apps. We found no public information on SharePoint or Confluence export or on CRM field mapping per meeting type. 18 5 7 17 4
The Data Protection Officer
Over twenty CRMs including Dynamics 365 and Pipedrive, Slack and Teams, Zapier, native apps and a browser extension, a documented GraphQL API with rate limits stated per plan, webhooks with signing and an MCP server form a strong integration layer. We found no public information on CRM field mapping per meeting type or SharePoint and Confluence export. 18 17 5 7 4
The IT Lead
Over twenty CRM integrations are listed including HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive and Microsoft Dynamics 365, alongside Slack, Zapier, a documented GraphQL API with published per-plan rate limits, webhooks with signing, and an MCP server for assistants like Claude and Cursor. For our Microsoft 365 estate the gap is real: we found no public information on SharePoint or Confluence export, and CRM field mapping per meeting type is not documented. Meeting rules that apply templates by title, host or meeting type give me a workable per-team rollout lever. 4 5 7 15 17 18
The Skeptic
A long CRM list including Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Pipedrive, a documented GraphQL API with rate limits per plan, webhooks with signing and a versioned V2, plus an MCP server make this the strongest layer. We found no public information on CRM field mapping per meeting type, SharePoint or Confluence export, Make or n8n, or OAuth scopes; the API is GraphQL, not REST. 18 7 5 4 17
Consent, participant rights & works council
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether every person in the meeting knows and can decide, and whether the tool can be introduced under German co-determination: a recording notice to all participants including external guests, consent or opt-out before the recording starts, a visible bot or a stated notice for botless capture, rules for when the assistant joins automatically, stopping and deleting a recording on request, per-person analytics (talk time, sentiment, engagement scores) off by default or switchable per organisation, material or a template for a works agreement (Betriebsvereinbarung, § 87 (1) no. 6 BetrVG), and support for a data protection impact assessment.
0 — Built to record people without their knowledge, or sells covert recording or individual performance scoring as a feature.
3 — A general privacy statement and a bot that appears in the participant list; notices to guests, opt-out, per-person analytics and works councils are basic or not described.
5 — A recording notice to participants by chat message, email or the bot's name, a way for a participant to stop the recording or opt out, admin rules for when the assistant joins, recordings deletable on request, and per-person analytics described with how to switch them off.
8 — Consent collected before recording starts for external participants, per-person analytics off by default or switchable per organisation, botless capture with its notice method documented, a works-council information pack or works-agreement template published, DPIA support, and the EU AI Act classification stated.
10 — Co-determination built into the product: every analytic and its granularity documented for the works council, consent and opt-out logged per participant, configuration changes logged, minimum group sizes for any team statistics, and references of works-council-approved rollouts published.
The Management Consultant
The consent machinery is unusually well documented: on Google Meet, Zoom and Teams every participant must approve before the bot joins, external guests get an email an hour ahead with a decline link, anyone can pause with a chat or voice command or remove the bot with no rejoin, participants can request deletion, and botless capture carries three notice signals including a spoken message and a visible camera watermark. That gives me something concrete to show clients. We found no public information on a works-agreement template or works-council information pack, on DPIA support, on an EU AI Act classification, or on whether the talk-time and sentiment analytics sold on higher tiers are off by default or switchable per organisation. 7 19 20
The Sales Team Lead
Opt-in approval from every participant on Google Meet, Zoom and Teams, a decline link emailed an hour before the meeting, pause and leave commands, three botless notification signals on by default, and deletion on participant request are all documented — stronger consent machinery than I expected. We found no public information on per-person analytics such as talk time and sentiment being off by default or switchable per organisation, on a works-agreement template or works-council material, on DPIA support, or on an EU AI Act classification, which is exactly what a German works council will ask my customers for. 19 20 14 7
The Works Council Chair
On Google Meet, Zoom and Microsoft Teams every participant must approve before recording starts, an email informs participants an hour ahead with a link to decline, pause and leave commands work mid-meeting, the bot does not rejoin after removal, and botless capture has three documented notice signals on by default. But talk-time analytics and sentiment analysis are part of the paid product and we found no public information on switching them off for the whole organisation, nor on a works-agreement template, DPIA support or an EU AI Act classification. The pages also put the duty to inform participants on the individual employee whenever notice options are disabled, which a works agreement would have to close. 19 20 7 14 22
The Data Protection Officer
The consent machinery is genuinely documented: opt-in requiring every participant on Meet, Zoom and Teams, an opt-out flow with a one-hour email and decline link, pause and leave commands, deletion on participant request, and three botless notice signals on by default. But talk-time and sentiment analytics are described without any off-by-default statement, and we found no public information on a works-agreement template, DPIA support or an EU AI Act classification, which is what co-determination would turn on. 19 20 7 14
The IT Lead
Participant rights are documented in unusual depth: on Google Meet, Zoom and Microsoft Teams every participant must approve before the bot joins and any decline stops it, an email with a decline link goes out one hour ahead, pause and leave commands work mid-meeting, botless capture carries three separate notice signals, and participants can request deletion from the host or support. But talk-time and sentiment analytics are presented as features with no published way to switch them off organisation-wide, and we found no public information on a works-agreement template, DPIA support or an EU AI Act classification. 7 14 19 20
The Skeptic
Notice and control are better documented than most: opt-in where platforms support it with every participant required to approve, a decline link by email an hour ahead, pause and leave chat commands, three botless notification signals and deletion on a participant's request. But talk-time and sentiment analytics are sold with no word on whether they are off by default or switchable per organisation, and we found no public information on works-council material, DPIA support or an EU AI Act classification. The vendor also puts the recording-law burden on any user who disables a consent option. 19 20 7 14
Retention, AI training & administration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the employer can govern: retention periods and automatic deletion of recordings, transcripts and summaries, whether audio and video can be discarded after transcription, sharing defaults and link permissions, customer content excluded from model training by contract, the AI and transcription providers named with their region and their own retention, encryption, single sign-on (SAML), SCIM, roles and workspaces, admin policies on auto-recording and sharing, audit logs, export of the whole archive, and security certifications such as ISO 27001 and SOC 2.
0 — No administration and no deletion; every user decides alone and recordings are kept indefinitely.
3 — Users can delete their own recordings and a security page exists; retention policies, model training, SSO and audit logs are basic or not described.
5 — Retention settings per workspace, customer content excluded from model training, team workspaces with roles, single sign-on, admin control over sharing and auto-recording, encryption at rest and in transit, and ISO 27001 or SOC 2 stated.
8 — Automatic deletion by policy with audio discardable after transcription, the AI and transcription subprocessors named with region and zero retention, SAML with SCIM, granular roles, audit logs, legal hold or export of the full archive, and certifications with their scope published.
10 — Governance an auditor accepts: every retention, sharing and recording policy enforceable centrally and logged, models run on the vendor's own or the customer's infrastructure as an option, audit logs exportable to a SIEM, and the deletion of every copy, including at subprocessors, documented.
The Management Consultant
The written promise I want from every vendor is in the terms: user content is not used to train generative AI models, vendors are contractually barred from training on it, and a zero-day retention policy with all AI vendors and partners covers audio, video, transcripts and summaries. Custom data retention, a transcript-only mode for organisations that cannot store audio, SSO with SCIM, audit logs through the API, a Super Admin role, AES-256 at rest and TLS in transit, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 round out governance a client's legal team can work with. Certification reports are provided on request rather than with published scope, and we found no public information on legal hold. 7 8 9 10 11
The Sales Team Lead
Enterprise brings custom data retention, SSO with SCIM, audit logs via API, a super admin role, private storage and a rules engine; customer content is excluded from model training by default and contractually from vendor training, encryption is AES-256 at rest with TLS in transit, and SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 are stated with subprocessors named with their locations. We found no public information on legal hold, on the scope of the certifications, or on a policy to discard audio after transcription, and export is per-meeting download plus API rather than a documented whole-archive export. 7 8 9 11 1
The Works Council Chair
Custom retention, a rules engine, a super admin role, SSO with SCIM and audit logs via API are documented on the Enterprise plan, together with SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 certifications, AES-256 encryption, training on customer content contractually excluded including at the vendors, and named subprocessors under a stated zero-day retention policy. We found no public information on legal hold, on audit-log export to a SIEM, or on a default retention period for recordings outside the Enterprise plan. 7 8 9 10 11 22
The Data Protection Officer
The terms exclude model training contractually and prohibit vendors from training, zero-day retention is claimed with all vendors, custom retention and transcript-only modes exist, and SSO with SCIM, audit logs, AES-256 and TLS, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 are stated, with OpenAI and Assembly.ai named with their region and a self-service DPA. We found no public information on deletion of every copy at subprocessors being evidenced beyond the policy claim, or on audit-log export to a SIEM. 10 8 11 9 7 12 22
The IT Lead
This is what I want from a vendor: the Enterprise plan carries SSO with SCIM, custom data retention, an audit logs API, a super admin role and an admin rules engine; customer content is excluded from model training by default and contractually at vendors, encryption is 256-bit AES at rest with TLS in transit, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 are stated, and the subprocessors are named with region and a zero-day retention policy. Transcript-only or summary-only modes let us drop audio, and per-meeting downloads of summary, transcript, audio and video cover export. We found no public information on SIEM export of the audit logs or on legal hold. 1 7 8 9 11 19
The Skeptic
Retention by policy, transcript-only and summary-only modes so audio need not be stored, named subprocessors with a zero-day retention policy, SSO with SCIM, an audit-logs API and no-training commitments repeated in privacy policy and terms give a real governance surface. The gaps an auditor would ask about: certification scope is only available by requesting the report, and we found no public information on legal hold, SIEM export of logs, or documented deletion of every copy at subprocessors beyond the zero-retention claim. 7 8 9 10 11
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where recordings, transcripts, summaries, voice profiles and account data are stored and processed, which language model and transcription providers read them and where, and who the other subprocessors are (hosting, email, support, analytics and payment tools). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. A conferencing platform outside Europe that the customer already uses is part of the meeting, not counted against the notetaker; where the notetaker stores and processes the conversation is.
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 (language models, transcription, email, support, payment) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors including the AI providers listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, with transcription and language models run in Europe by European operators, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.
The Management Consultant
The contracting entity is Fireflies.ai Corp. of Miami, hosting is stated as servers in the United States and other countries, and every named subprocessor — Google Cloud Platform and MongoDB Atlas for infrastructure, OpenAI for the language model, Assembly.ai for transcription — is US-based. A self-service GDPR data processing agreement, EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework certification and zero-retention terms are the safeguards on offer, and Enterprise private storage speaks of storing data at a preferred location, but we found no public information on an EU hosting option. For client conversations in Munich, that is a chain every procurement department will want to discuss. 9 11 12 22
The Sales Team Lead
The contracting entity is Fireflies.ai Corp. of Miami, Florida, the privacy policy states processing on servers in the United States and other countries, and the named subprocessors — OpenAI for the language model, Assembly.ai for transcription, Google Cloud Platform and MongoDB Atlas — are all listed as US. A self-service GDPR data processing agreement and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework are published, but we found no public information on EU hosting or a European entity, only a vague preferred-location choice for private storage on Enterprise. 11 9 12 22
The Works Council Chair
The contracting entity is the US corporation, processing is stated to happen on servers in the United States and other countries, and every named subprocessor — OpenAI for the language model, Assembly.ai for transcription, Google Cloud, MongoDB Atlas — is listed as US-based. A GDPR data processing agreement is published for self-service signature and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework is invoked, but we found no public information on EU hosting or on a European contracting entity or representative. 11 9 12 10 22
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Fireflies.AI Corp. in Miami, processing is stated for the United States and other countries, and all four named subprocessors - OpenAI, Assembly.ai, Google Cloud Platform and MongoDB Atlas - are US providers, with the Data Privacy Framework and a self-service DPA as the safeguards. Enterprise private storage offers a choice of storage location, but we found no confirmation of EU hosting or a European entity, and transcription and language-model processing in Europe are not documented. 11 9 12 22 10
The IT Lead
The contracting entity is Fireflies.ai Corp. in the United States, processing runs on servers located in the United States and other countries, and the whole chain — OpenAI for the language model, Assembly.ai for transcription, Google Cloud Platform and MongoDB Atlas for infrastructure — is US-based; a self-service GDPR data processing agreement and EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification are published. Enterprise private storage promises storage at a preferred location, but we found no public information confirming EU hosting or a European entity, so this will be the hard conversation with my works council. 9 11 12 22
The Skeptic
The chain on the captured pages is entirely American: Fireflies.ai Corp., servers in the United States and other countries, OpenAI and Assembly.ai as US AI and transcription providers — with the Data Privacy Framework as the only stated safeguard for EU transfers. A self-service GDPR data processing agreement and a named subprocessor list with locations lift it above a bare policy, but we found no public information on a European entity or named EU hosting, and the private-storage "preferred location" names no EU region. 9 11 12 22
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per seat and tier, what counts as a seat (every invited user, only recording users), transcription minutes or credits included, storage limits, which features (CRM integrations, API access, SSO, custom retention, EU hosting, AI credits) cost extra, the free tier and its limits, monthly versus annual billing, minimum seats and VAT.
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 seats, minutes or features is unclear.
5 — Tiers are public with their seat price and main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, CRM integration, API, custom retention, EU hosting, minute or credit limits) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (seats, minutes, credits, storage), add-ons priced, what counts as a seat stated, overage handling stated, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given team size and meeting volume, with every add-on, overage and support fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.
The Management Consultant
The tier comparison is public and detailed — a free tier with 400 minutes of team storage and 20 AI credits, Pro with 8,000 minutes per seat, per-plan recording limits, video quality, channel types and API rate limits, plus up to 44% saved with annual billing — and additional custom summary templates are priced in AI credits with the first one free. We found no public information on the monetary seat price, what counts as a seat, VAT treatment, minimum term or overage costs, so I cannot compute a year's cost for twelve consultants from the captured pages alone. 7 15
The Sales Team Lead
The free tier's limits (unlimited transcription, 400 minutes of storage per team, 20 AI credits) and each tier's inclusions, recording limits and AI credits are public, with "Save up to 44% with annual billing" stated and the first custom summary template free while further ones consume AI credits. The captured pages contain no per-seat price at all, and we found no public information on what counts as a seat, VAT treatment, minimum terms or the price of add-ons beyond the bot-name customisation — I cannot compute the annual cost for my eight-person team from what was captured. 7 15 17
The Works Council Chair
The captured pricing pages show a free tier and four plans with their storage minutes, AI credits, recording limits and video quality, a stated saving of up to 44% with annual billing, and priced behaviours such as custom templates beyond the first consuming AI credits. But we found no public seat price in the captured pages, so the annual cost for a workforce of our size cannot be computed from them. 7 15
The Data Protection Officer
A free tier and four public tiers with their inclusions - storage minutes, AI credits, recording limits, video quality, API rates - and an annual discount of up to 44% are documented. The captured pricing page states no per-seat figures, the bot-name add-on and AI-credit consumption are unpriced, and Enterprise terms are on request, so the annual cost cannot be computed from public pages. 7 15 1
The IT Lead
The four tiers are public with their inclusions — AI credits per plan, storage from 400 mins of storage/team on the free tier to 8,000 mins of storage/seat on Pro, recording-length limits and API rate limits — plus a monthly-versus-annual toggle advertised as "Save up to 44% with annual billing". We found no public information on the per-seat price itself, on what counts as a seat, on VAT treatment or overage handling, and no published price attaches to the Enterprise inclusions such as SSO and custom data retention — so I cannot compute what four hundred seats would cost me. 7 15
The Skeptic
Plan inclusions are unusually public — storage minutes, AI credits, recording limits, API rate limits per tier, the annual discount and which add-ons cost extra — but we found no public information on seat prices in the captured pages, so no buyer can compute a real annual cost. We also found no public information on what counts as a seat, VAT treatment, minimum seats or overage handling for credits. 7 15
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Fireflies.ai
Is Fireflies.ai European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Fireflies.ai as Rest of world.
Where does Fireflies.ai store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026.
Does Fireflies.ai have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Fireflies.ai?
As of 6 Nov 2026, the panel rates MeetGeek (3.5/5), Noota (3.5/5) and Jamie (3.5/5) highest among the other 14 AI Meeting Assistants & Notetakers 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 MeetGeek (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Fireflies.ai alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 5 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 location, Hosting options, Data processing agreement. 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.
- 17 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 14 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
- 12 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
- 11 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
- 2 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
- 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (22)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Integrations page fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 API overview fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 API documentation docs.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Features page (enterprise) fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Pricing page fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Security / trust page fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Trust center trust.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Terms of service fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Privacy policy fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Data processing agreement (dpa) fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 13 Recording, transcription & languages — found from sitemap guide.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 14 Recording, transcription & languages — found from sitemap guide.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 15 Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge — found from sitemap guide.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 16 Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge — found from sitemap guide.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 17 Integrations, API & workflow — found from sitemap docs.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 18 Integrations, API & workflow — found from sitemap fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 19 Consent, participant rights & works council — found from sitemap guide.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 20 Consent, participant rights & works council — found from sitemap guide.fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 21 Retention, AI training & administration — found from sitemap fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
- 22 Retention, AI training & administration — found from sitemap fireflies.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →