whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Meeting Assistants & Notetakers

Krisp AI Meeting Assistant

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 Krisp Technologies, Inc. · krisp.ai

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

Link to this page

Krisp AI Meeting Assistant: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Krisp AI Meeting Assistant: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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.

Krisp AI Meeting Assistant at a glance

Vendor
Krisp Technologies, 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
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Krisp AI Meeting Assistant 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Krisp's AI Meeting Assistant is strongest on capture and transcription: bot and bot-free modes, in-person capture on desktop and mobile, file upload, speaker labels, a 750-term workspace vocabulary and a stated 96% accuracy in 17 languages — though the captured pages give different figures for the language count, and German is not named among the languages on any of them. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 5 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 6 Nov 2026. all sources

Krisp AI Meeting Assistant alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Works Council Chair

Weighted verdict

Chairs the works council of a machine builder with 2,300 employees in Baden-Württemberg. Management wants a notetaker in every Teams meeting; the council has to agree to it under § 87 BetrVG first. Wants to know who is told that a recording runs and who can say no, whether talk time or engagement scores per person exist and can be switched off for good, how long recordings are kept, and material the vendor provides for a works agreement.

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

Scored by The Works Council Chair

Panel median The Works Council Chair 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 Works Council Chair
Recording, transcription & languages 3.5 of 5 4 of 5
Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
Integrations, API & workflow 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Consent, participant rights & works council 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Retention, AI training & administration 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 2 of 5 2 of 5
Pricing transparency 3 of 5 2.5 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 Works Council Chair

Botless capture on any conferencing app sits next to an optional meeting bot, in-person recording runs on desktop and mobile, recordings can be uploaded, speaker labels and real-time transcription are documented, and 96 percent accuracy with 750 workspace-level custom terms is stated — the captured pages give different figures for language count, 16 versus 17+, and an on-device transcription option exists on the Enterprise plan. I found no public information on timestamps linked to the recording, an editable transcript, or accuracy stated per language, so I stay one step below the top. 1 3 4 6 8 11

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 Works Council Chair

Short and long meeting summaries with action items assigned to the right people, an in-product chat answering questions over transcripts in multiple languages, and automatic pushes of notes and tasks to Slack, HubSpot and Salesforce are documented. I found no public information on templates per meeting type, search across all past meetings, export to Word or PDF, or answers that cite the transcript passage they rest on — and the terms name only proprietary AI models or third-party models without identifying them. 1 3 5 9 11

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 Works Council Chair

Google Calendar, native CRM connectors for HubSpot, Salesforce and Pipedrive, Slack, Teams and Notion, Zapier carrying the rest of the stated 47 integrations, team-level webhooks, an MCP integration, an API option and a Chrome extension are all public. For a rollout at 2,300 employees I found no public information on recording rules per calendar or meeting type, or reference documentation and per-field CRM mapping for the API, which keeps this below the top band. 1 5 6 10

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 Works Council Chair

Recordings and meeting notes are stored "until you instruct us to delete" — no configurable retention period is documented anywhere I read, which for meeting recordings at our company I cannot accept, though audio is deleted from the servers once the transcript is generated. Single sign-on with SCIM, a super admin role, encryption at rest and in transit and SOC 2 Type II are documented, while admin policies on auto-recording and sharing, audit logs and export of the whole archive are not; on AI training the captured pages give different signals, with the trust center stating personal data is not used to train its models and the privacy policy listing model improvement on the basis of consent. 6 8 10 11

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 Works Council Chair

The contracting entity is a Delaware corporation that primarily processes and stores information in the United States on AWS in Northern Virginia, with Cloudflare, HubSpot and Twilio SendGrid as named subprocessors, all USA, and I found no public information on a European hosting option — for our council the meeting content leaves the EU/EEA by design. Standard Contractual Clauses (Module 2), an Article 27 representative in Prague and a data processing agreement on request are documented, which lifts this above the bottom without approaching European hosting. 8 9 10

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 Works Council Chair

Core at $8/mo/user and Advanced at $15/mo/user are public, with unlimited transcription, storage of 10 GB and 60 GB per tier, a free tier, and a stated 50 percent annual saving; Enterprise is "Custom Pricing" via sales. I found no public information on what counts as a seat, VAT treatment or the price of extra storage up to 2 TB, so the real annual cost is not computable from public pages alone. 4 6

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.

Hosting location Outside the EU ⚠ unverified 0/4 pts 8 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 Krisp AI Meeting Assistant

Is Krisp AI Meeting Assistant European?

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

Where does Krisp AI Meeting Assistant store data?

Krisp AI Meeting Assistant 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 Krisp AI Meeting Assistant have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Krisp AI Meeting Assistant?

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: Krisp AI Meeting Assistant alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

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

Do you know more about Krisp AI Meeting Assistant? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page (AI meeting assistant) krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Features page (AI notetaker) krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Features page (meeting transcription) krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Integrations page krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Pricing page krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Security / trust page krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Trust center trust.krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Terms of service krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Privacy policy (names the operating company) krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Recording, transcription & languages — found from sitemap krisp.ai Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →