AI Meeting Assistants & Notetakers

Sally

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by Aliru GmbH · www.sally.io

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

Markdown

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

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.

Sally at a glance

Vendor: Aliru GmbH
Headquarters: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026
Data hosting: Default not stated; pages mention Germany source, captured 5 Nov 2026
Free plan: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026
Starting price: “$0/ user / month $8/mo after 30-day trial; billed annually (excl. VAT)” (vendor’s words) source, captured 5 Nov 2026
Panel verdict: The AI panel rates Sally 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Sally, an AI meeting assistant from Aliru GmbH of Mannheim, scores highest on consent and co-determination, data control and sovereignty, where scores cluster at 8-9, resting on a free nine-paragraph works-agreement template aligned with the DPA and TOMs citing § 87 (1) no. how scores are made
As of: Vendor pages captured 5 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 6 Nov 2026. all sources

Sally alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has seen "99% accuracy in 100 languages" turn a German meeting into English nonsense, a bot that joined a meeting its owner never attended and mailed the summary to every guest, and an action item no one in the room had agreed to. Asks which model wrote the summary and where it runs, whether each statement can be traced to the transcript, who told the external participants, what "we do not train on your data" covers in the DPA — and how the archive leaves.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic 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 Skeptic
Recording, transcription & languages	4 of 5	3.5 of 5
Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge	3 of 5	3 of 5
Integrations, API & workflow	4 of 5	4 of 5
Consent, participant rights & works council	4 of 5	4 of 5
Retention, AI training & administration	4 of 5	4 of 5
European sovereignty	4.5 of 5	4 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 Skeptic

The intake is broad: a bot for Teams, Zoom, Google Meet and Webex, botless Windows and macOS recorders, in-person capture via app, file upload in twelve formats, speaker labels, timestamps and an editable transcript, plus custom vocabulary, dialect training, mixed-language handling and accuracy up to 98.8 percent with a stated basis of 28,000 analysed meetings. I hold back from the top band because accuracy is not published per language or capture method, the captured pages give different language counts of 99+ and over 103, phone calls appear only on the roadmap, and speaker names learned across meetings are not documented. 10 5 3 11 12 6

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 Skeptic

Decisions and action items with owners are extracted and pushed to Jira, Asana and the CRMs, the summary language follows the meeting, the user or a fixed organization-wide choice, search covers all meetings with an AI answer, and the minutes export to six formats from an own language model on the vendor's own German infrastructure. The traceability I demand is not evidenced: we found no public information on answers that cite and link the transcript passage they rest on, on templates per meeting type, or on team libraries with permissions. 5 13 14 3 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 Skeptic

Calendars including on-premise Outlook and CalDAV, HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Dynamics 365 and four more CRMs, Confluence, Slack and Teams channels, Zapier, Make, n8n and Power Automate, plus an API with webhooks and an MCP server wiring Sally into ChatGPT, Claude and Copilot — most of the substance of the highest documented level. CRM field mapping per meeting type and a full API reference with rate limits and versioning are not shown, which is what keeps me from crediting the top grade. 3 5 6 16

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 Skeptic

The co-determination package is real: a chat notice on joining with three admin-set options, an advance email opt-in so Sally joins only after consent, a chat opt-out that immediately deletes all captured data and removes her, a nine-paragraph works agreement template aligned with the DPA and TOMs citing § 87 (1) no. 6 BetrVG, the EU AI Act limited-risk classification, a DPIA, and behaviour and performance analysis contractually excluded. My reservations: the recommended default posts the notice only with external participants and "Never" is a selectable option, in-person capture relies on the recording person to inform and document, and consent or opt-out is not logged per participant. 17 18 7 10 9

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 Skeptic

Deletion is engineered rather than promised: per-workspace automatic deletion rules for transcripts, recordings and summaries, raw audio discarded after transcription unless storage is enabled, deletions carried into every backup the following night, all data gone within 30 days of contract end with written confirmation, and no AI training fixed in the terms — alongside ISO 27001 with issuer and validity, audit logs, SSO with SCIM and a documented admin-access regime. Below the top band because SOC 2 is stated as "aligned" rather than certified, SAML is not named, subprocessor retention is not stated, and we found no public information on legal hold or export of audit logs to a SIEM. 19 18 10 7 20 6

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 Skeptic

The vendor's own pages prove a German GmbH with register number and VAT ID in Mannheim, hosting at Hetzner in Germany, an own language model on own German infrastructure with no external AI providers for meeting content, a published Art. 28 DPA, and a named subprocessor list of Hetzner, DeepL, Strato, Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Stripe. I stop short of the top grade because DeepL's and Stripe's locations are not stated, certification scope is not published, and the independently computed sovereignty attributes mark residency and the DPA as unknown next to these vendor statements. 8 10 7 5 18

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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 Skeptic

Three tiers are public at $8/mo, $40/mo and $79/mo per user after a 30-day trial without credit card, billed annually, excl. VAT, with 1,200 transcription minutes on Starter, unlimited minutes on Pro, fair-use meeting hours per day from the terms, per-file upload limits and licence mixing allowed. A buyer still cannot compute the full cost: monthly-billing prices are not shown, what counts as a seat is not stated, and the consequence of exceeding the Starter minutes or the fair-use hours is not described. 6 9 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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	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 ⚠ unverified	—	uncited Report an error

Questions about Sally

Is Sally European?

Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Sally as EU-Made.

Where does Sally store data?

The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 5 Nov 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Germany as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 5 Nov 2026.

Does Sally have a free plan?

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

What are the best alternatives to Sally?

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: Sally 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, Transfer impact assessment. 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.

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 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
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
2 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
1 hosting 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 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
4 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us

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

Sources (20)

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

1 Vendor homepage www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
2 Features page (Teams, Zoom and Meet integration) www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
3 Integrations page www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
4 Features page (developers) www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
5 Help centre help.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
6 Pricing page www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
7 Security and GDPR page www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
8 Legal notice www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
9 Terms of service www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
10 Privacy policy (SaaS platform) www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
11 Recording, transcription & languages — found from sitemap www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
12 Recording, transcription & languages — found from sitemap www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
13 Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge — found from sitemap help.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
14 Summaries, action items & meeting knowledge — found from sitemap help.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
15 Integrations, API & workflow — found from sitemap www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
16 Integrations, API & workflow — found from sitemap www.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
17 Consent, participant rights & works council — found from sitemap help.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
18 Consent, participant rights & works council — found from sitemap help.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
19 Retention, AI training & administration — found from sitemap help.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →
20 Retention, AI training & administration — found from sitemap help.sally.io Checked 5 Nov 2026 Details →