AI Meeting Assistants & Notetakers

Grain

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 2 of 6 dimensions proven

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

by Grain Intelligence, Inc. · grain.com

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Management Consultant v1.0 · The Sales Team Lead v1.0 · The Works Council Chair v1.0 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The IT Lead v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 6 Nov 2026

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

HTML

<a href="https://whats-best.ai/software/meeting-assistants/grain"><img src="https://whats-best.ai/badge/meeting-assistants/grain.svg" alt="Grain: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai" height="66"></a>

Markdown

[![Grain: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai](https://whats-best.ai/badge/meeting-assistants/grain.svg)](https://whats-best.ai/software/meeting-assistants/grain)

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.

Grain at a glance

Vendor: Grain Intelligence, Inc.
Headquarters: Incorporated in United States source, captured 5 Nov 2026
Data hosting: Outside the EU by default; pages mention United States source, captured 5 Nov 2026
Free plan: Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 5 Nov 2026
Panel verdict: The AI panel rates Grain 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Grain is an AI meeting assistant that captures calls with a bot on Zoom, Teams, Google Meet and Webex or through botless desktop recording, producing transcripts, summaries, action items and sync to HubSpot and Salesforce. how scores are made
As of: Vendor pages captured 5 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 6 Nov 2026. all sources

Grain alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Data protection officer of a private bank in Frankfurt that falls under DORA. Has to write the data protection impact assessment before the first recording. Reads the subprocessor list before the feature page, because the language model that reads the transcript is a processor too, and wants its name and region, contractual exclusion from training, retention and deletion by policy, voice profiles explained, and a DPA that matches what the security page claims.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.

Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion	Panel median	The Data Protection Officer
Recording, transcription & languages	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
Integrations, API & workflow	4 of 5	3.5 of 5
Consent, participant rights & works council	3 of 5	3 of 5
Retention, AI training & administration	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
European sovereignty	2 of 5	2 of 5
Pricing transparency	3 of 5	3 of 5

Recording, transcription & languages

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Capture runs through a bot on Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet and Webex and, next to it, botless desktop capture of the computer's audio plus upload of external recordings that are then transcribed, with live transcripts, speaker identification by voice, custom vocabulary and downloadable transcripts in 99 languages. The speech-to-text providers appear with their regions on the sub-processor list, though the captured pages give different figures for the language count (99 and 100+). We found no public information on phone or dialer calls, mixed-language meetings, accuracy per language, or German being explicitly named among the supported languages. 1 4 9 11 16

Report an error

Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Meeting notes, automatic recaps, action items and custom AI prompts are documented, questions can be asked across the entire meeting library with citations, trackers cover topics and keywords across meetings, team libraries carry sharing rules, and the summarising models (Anthropic and OpenAI) are named on the sub-processor list. Action items come without stated owners or due dates, and we found no public information on choosing the summary language, hallucination handling and human review, or summary quality by language. 1 2 4 9 10 12

Report an error

Integrations, API & workflow

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Google and Microsoft calendars drive recording rules, HubSpot and Salesforce receive notes and properties on contacts and deals, Slack, Notion, Productboard, Asana, Zapier and Confluence embeds are documented, and a REST API with rate limits, versioning, webhooks and OAuth2 sits beside an MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. We found no public information on Microsoft Dynamics, Pipedrive or CRM field mapping per meeting type, and no sandbox is offered — testing runs against the live workspace. This is a layer a company can build on, with API and MCP access stated per plan. 1 2 4 11 12

Report an error

Consent, participant rights & works council

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Consent emails go out 24 hours ahead, any decline disables auto-capture for the meeting, responses are documented to the recorder, bot-recorded calls carry a personalised disclaimer, and Zoom's native consent reporting can be leveraged. Against that, Desktop Capture has no in-meeting consent mechanism and the burden stays verbal, silence is treated as consent, a "record anyway" override records against a stated preference, and consent requests are gated to Business and Enterprise plans and tracked by email rather than in the app. We found no public information on works-council material, a works-agreement template, DPIA support or an EU AI Act classification. 4 6 13 14 16

Report an error

Retention, AI training & administration

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Workspace-wide auto-deletion policies, deletion of individual recordings, link access and team sharing rules, SAML SSO with SCIM and audit event logs on Enterprise, SOC 2 Type II, encryption at rest and in transit, exclusion of meeting data from AI training on every plan, and a named sub-processor list including the LLM and speech-to-text providers give an administrator a great deal to govern. For my impact assessment the gaps remain: retention is stated as "as long as needed to provide the Services", audio disposal after transcription is undocumented, the voice profiles behind speaker identification are unexplained, and certification scope and SIEM export of audit logs are not published. 4 5 8 9 15 16

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The contracting entity is a Delaware corporation under California law and all customer data is hosted in United States data centres, and the sub-processor list is candid — Anthropic and OpenAI (United States) for summarisation, AssemblyAI (United States) and Rev AI (United States and European Union) for speech-to-text, AWS (United States) for recording storage — but we found no public information on EU hosting, an EU contracting entity or representative, or transfer safeguards such as standard contractual clauses. A "mutually signed DPA" appears on the pricing page and DPA links for AssemblyAI and Amplitude on the sub-processor page, yet no data processing agreement is confirmed on the vendor's own captured legal pages. 4 7 9

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Free, Pro and Business are priced publicly with monthly and annual figures — Free forever at $0 with no credit card, Pro at $15 per month billed annually and $19 billed monthly, Business at $29 per seat/month billed annually and $39 billed monthly with a 2-seat minimum and free viewer seats — and the plan matrices disclose meeting-length and upload limits and which features need Business or Enterprise. Enterprise is contact-sales only, and we found no public information on storage limits, transcription minute or credit allowances, VAT treatment, overage handling, or what precisely counts as a seat. 4 10 13

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 of 6 dimensions proven

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

Legal entity	Incorporated in US	0/2 pts	7 Report an error
Hosting location	Outside the EU ⚠ unverified	0/4 pts	5 Report an error
Hosting options	Not determined	—	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 Grain

Is Grain European?

No. whats-best.ai classifies Grain as Rest of world. Its vendor, Grain Intelligence, Inc., is incorporated in United States, per the vendor’s page captured 5 Nov 2026.

Where does Grain store data?

Grain stores customer data outside the EU by default, per the vendor’s page captured 5 Nov 2026. The vendor’s pages mention United States as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 5 Nov 2026.

Does Grain have a free plan?

Yes. Grain has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 5 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Grain?

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: Grain 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 — Data processing agreement. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
Weak sourcing — Hosting location. The page speaks of hosting Grain's software rather than customer data explicitly, but this is corroborated by the sub-processor list showing video call recording storage with AWS in the United States.
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.

4 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
3 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
1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us

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

Sources (16)

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

1 Vendor homepage grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
2 Features page (product and UX teams) grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
3 Integrations page grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
4 Pricing page grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
5 Security / trust page grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
6 Privacy page (recording and sharing) grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
7 Terms of service grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
8 Privacy policy grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
9 Subprocessor list grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
10 Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge — found from sitemap support.grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
11 Integrations, API & workflow — found from sitemap support.grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
12 Integrations, API & workflow — found from sitemap support.grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
13 Consent, participant rights & works council — found from sitemap support.grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
14 Consent, participant rights & works council — found from sitemap grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
15 Retention, AI training & administration — found from sitemap support.grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
16 Retention, AI training & administration — found from sitemap support.grain.com Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →