Online Whiteboard
Collaboard
UK / wider Europe Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by IBV Informatik, Beratungs und Vertriebs AG · www.collaboard.app
Compare with Conceptboard → 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.
Collaboard at a glance
- Vendor
- IBV Informatik, Beratungs und Vertriebs AG
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 1 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Collaboard 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Collaboard is an online whiteboard from Swiss vendor IBV Informatik AG, and the bench scores it highest on sovereignty — the only criterion to reach 8 — citing a published Article 28(3) data processing agreement that names subprocessors with addresses, hosting on Azure Netherlands, Azure Switzerland or the German Open Telekom Cloud, and an on-premises edition, air-gapped included, documented for the Enterprise tier. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 1 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Collaboard is an online whiteboard from Swiss vendor IBV Informatik AG, and the bench scores it highest on sovereignty — the only criterion to reach 8 — citing a published Article 28(3) data processing agreement that names subprocessors with addresses, hosting on Azure Netherlands, Azure Switzerland or the German Open Telekom Cloud, and an on-premises edition, air-gapped included, documented for the Enterprise tier. Access and administration follows at 6-7, on SCIM documented in depth and tenant-wide audit logs with stated retention. The bench's only 5s fall on pricing transparency: the tier carrying single sign-on, SCIM, audit logs and self-hosting is 'Custom pricing', German hosting is available 'for an additional charge' and we found no public information on the amount, and the captured pages give different figures for currency, the pricing page showing dollar amounts while the terms state all prices are in Euro (EUR). Judges also found no public information on which AI providers process board content, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2. No criterion splits by more than one point.
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty is the highest-scored criterion (8), with a published Article 28(3) data processing agreement naming subprocessors and their addresses.
- Hosting is selectable and documented — Azure Netherlands, Azure Switzerland, the German Open Telekom Cloud, or an on-premises edition including air-gapped deployments.
- SCIM provisioning and tenant-wide audit logs are documented in depth, with CSV export and retention of 365 days on the German environment and 90 days on web and Swiss.
- Guest editors join without a login, and Basic at '$6/user per month billed yearly' and Advanced at '$11.50/user per month billed yearly' are published with limits stated per tier.
- Import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard is documented with a full object mapping, and sticky notes, text, shapes, images and lines stay editable after import.
Held against it
- Single sign-on, SCIM, audit logs and self-hosting all sit in the Enterprise tier at 'Custom pricing'.
- German hosting is available 'for an additional charge', and we found no public information on that amount, on minimum seats or on monthly billing rates.
- The captured pages give different figures for currency, the pricing page showing dollar amounts while the terms state all prices are in Euro (EUR).
- We found no public information on which AI providers process board content, on whether boards train AI models, or on an admin switch for AI features.
- The documented export is a vector PDF, and we found no public information on CSV export of notes, webhooks or an editable export format.
Best for
- You need boards that can run on your own servers or in a named German, Swiss or Dutch cloud, with the subprocessor chain published.
- Your works council or security review requires documented audit logs and SCIM provisioning before any rollout.
- You are migrating workshops off Miro, Mural or Conceptboard and want the import mapping documented in advance.
- You run sessions inside Microsoft Teams or Webex and need stated per-plan participant limits to plan against.
Avoid if
- You must cost an enterprise deployment from public pages alone, since the Enterprise tier is 'Custom pricing'.
- You need to take content out in an editable format or as CSV of the notes, since the documented export is a vector PDF.
- You want German or Swiss hosting on the Free or Basic tiers, since those environments are listed for the Advanced and Enterprise subscriptions.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Canvas, templates & content | 3 of 5 |
| Workshop facilitation & participation | 3 of 5 |
| Integrations, import & export | 3 of 5 |
| Sharing, permissions & administration | 3.5 of 5 |
| Security, AI controls & deployment | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 4 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 of 5 |
Canvas, templates & content
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be put on the board and how fast: an infinite canvas, sticky notes, text, shapes and connectors, freehand drawing and pen input, frames and sections, images, files, documents and video embedded on the board, tables, mind maps, diagrams and flowcharts, a template library for workshops, retrospectives and planning, own templates for the organisation, search across boards, performance on large boards, and AI that clusters, summarises or generates content.
0 — Not a whiteboard; there is no shared canvas to put content on.
3 — A shared board with sticky notes, text, shapes and drawing; templates, embeds, diagrams and large boards are basic or not described.
5 — An infinite canvas with sticky notes, shapes and connectors, frames, images and files on the board, a template library for workshops, retrospectives and planning, own templates saved for the team, and the board usable on desktop, browser and tablet with pen input.
8 — Diagrams, mind maps, tables and kanban on the same board, embeds of live documents and video, templates managed centrally for the organisation, search across all boards, documented limits for large boards (objects, participants), and AI that clusters or summarises notes with its data use stated.
10 — A canvas a whole organisation builds on: structured data on the board (cards linked to records, custom fields), smart diagramming with shape libraries for named notations, offline work with conflict-free sync described, board performance at stated scale, and every content type exportable with its structure.
The Workshop Facilitator
An infinite canvas with sticky notes, five digital pens, mind maps, tables, shapes and lines, plus a template library of over 250 English and 350 German templates and organisation-wide custom templates I can save a whole board into — that covers my evening-before build. I found no public information on search across boards, stated limits for very large boards, or AI that clusters or summarises notes with its data use stated; the AI actions the captured pages name are image background removal and sticky-note detection. 1 2 12 13 16
The Product Team Lead
The infinitely large canvas with sticky notes, five digital pens, shapes, tables, mind maps and embedded documents, images, video and audio covers what my teams sketch architecture and story maps on, and the template library (over 250 English, over 350 German) with organisation-wide templates, categories and favourites is genuinely centrally managed. What holds it back: we found no public information on search across boards, on documented object limits for large boards, or on AI that clusters or summarises notes — the only AI actions shown in the audit trail are image background removal and sticky note detection. 1 2 6 12 13 18
The Microsoft 365 Admin
An infinite canvas with sticky notes, five digital pens, shapes, mind maps, tables, documents and multimedia is described, alongside a template library of over 250 English and over 350 German templates and organization-wide templates that owners and managers create, categorise and lock. We found no public information on search across all boards or documented object limits for very large boards, and while Collaboard AI is named, the pages we read state nothing about its data use. Enough canvas for our workshops, but the AI question goes to legal before anything is switched on. 1 2 12 13
The Works Council Member
An infinite canvas carries sticky notes, shapes, five digital pens, tables, mind maps and documents, and templates are managed centrally for the organisation — owners and managers create organisation templates in admin-defined categories, from a library of over 250 English and 350 German templates. We found no public information on search across boards, documented performance limits for large boards, or what Collaboard AI does with board content; for a works council, that silence around retrospective notes weighs more than any feature list. Kanban appears as a use case, and imported kanban boards are recommended to be rebuilt manually. 2 1 12 13 16 8
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Infinite canvas, sticky notes, five digital pens, shapes, tables, mind maps, documents and multimedia are all documented, with a large template library (over 350 German and over 250 English templates) and organisation-wide templates created by owners and managers. We found no public information on search across boards, documented limits for large boards, or what Collaboard AI does with board content. 1 2 6 12 13
The Skeptic
An infinitely large canvas, sticky notes, five digital pens, mind maps, tables and multimedia on the board are stated, backed by a template library of over 250 templates in English and organisation templates created and categorised centrally by owners and managers. What holds it down: we found no public information on search across boards or documented limits for large boards — the help pages only advise exporting large boards as several smaller PDFs — and no public information on what Collaboard AI does with board content or whether it clusters or summarises notes. 1 2 12 13 16
Workshop facilitation & participation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What it takes to run a session on the board: guests who join without an account, a timer, voting and dot voting, a private or anonymous mode for notes, bringing everyone to the facilitator's view (summon, follow), a presentation or frame mode, locking objects, reactions, breakout areas, an agenda or session plan, built-in audio or video or the call apps the board runs inside, participant limits, and accessibility for participants (keyboard, screen reader, contrast).
0 — No real-time collaboration; only one person can work on a board at a time.
3 — Several people edit the same board in real time and see each other's cursors; facilitation tools and guest access are basic or not described.
5 — Guests join by link without an account, a timer, voting, bringing participants to the facilitator's view, a presentation mode through frames, locking objects, and comments with mentions.
8 — A private or anonymous mode for brainstorming, voting with results and export, breakout areas or assigned frames, a session agenda or facilitator panel, the board running inside Teams, Zoom or Webex meetings, participant limits per session stated, and an accessibility statement for the board.
10 — Facilitation that a large event runs on: hundreds of participants per board with stated limits, facilitator controls over who may edit what and when, session recordings or summaries with their data use stated, a published accessibility conformance report (WCAG), and facilitation features documented step by step.
The Workshop Facilitator
Guests edit without an account ('no login required', 20 on Basic, unlimited on Advanced), there is a timer everyone sees, voting and rating with anonymous votes, an archive the facilitator shares back onto the board, 'attract attention' to pull everyone to one spot, a presentation mode where participants follow the presenter, and lock, pin and hide — my session checklist nearly complete, with participant limits stated per plan. I found no public information on an anonymous mode for the notes themselves, breakout areas, a session agenda, a Zoom app, or an accessibility statement. 1 2 6 14 15
The Product Team Lead
Guests edit without an account, there is a timer, anonymous voting with archived results, and the attract-attention and presentation modes bring everyone to the facilitator's view — a solid retrospective kit, documented step by step for the voting flow. Boards run inside Teams and Webex, participant limits are stated per plan, and admins can disable guest invitations or enforce guest passwords tenant-wide. We found no public information on breakout areas, a session agenda, an anonymous mode for sticky notes, or an accessibility statement for participants. 1 2 6 14 15 20
The Microsoft 365 Admin
Guests edit without an account with per-tier limits stated (up to 20 on Basic, unlimited on Advanced), the board runs inside Teams and Webex, and the help pages document voting in detail: anonymous votes and star ratings, a timer visible to all participants, archived results, and the facilitator choosing which results to share on the board. We found no public information on an anonymous mode for brainstorming notes, breakout areas, a session agenda, or an accessibility statement. For the Teams-run sessions I book weekly, the stated participant limits per plan are what I can actually plan against. 1 2 6 14 15
The Works Council Member
Guests edit without an account up to stated per-tier limits, and the voting system is documented step by step — anonymous votes, results visible only to the facilitator, an archive, participant selection and an "I finished" signal — alongside a timer, presentation and focus modes, follow-the-presenter and locking. The board runs inside Teams, Webex and Pexip. We found no public information on a private or anonymous mode for notes, breakout areas, a session agenda, or an accessibility statement. 6 2 14 15 1
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Guests can edit without an account on every paid tier, and timer, anonymous voting with two modes, participant selection, a results archive and a presentation mode that brings participants to the facilitator's view are all documented, with participant limits stated per plan. We found no public information on breakout areas, a session agenda, or an accessibility statement, which I need for participants from municipalities. 1 2 6 14 15
The Skeptic
Guests edit without a login, there is a timer, anonymous voting with archived results that the facilitator can share selectively, a presentation mode where all participants follow the presenter, object locking, and participant limits stated per tier (5 per board on the free plan, 50 on Basic, unlimited on Advanced). We found no public information on an accessibility statement, breakout areas, a session agenda, or a private mode for note-writing, and no public information on exporting voting results. 1 2 6 14 15
Integrations, import & export
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the board connects to the work around it and whether the content can leave: apps for Teams, Zoom, Webex, Slack and Google or Microsoft files, a two-way sync with Jira, Azure DevOps or other work tools, embedding boards in Confluence, SharePoint or intranets, a documented REST API and webhooks, import from Miro, Mural or other boards and from CSV or images, and export as PDF, image, CSV of the notes or an editable file another tool can open.
0 — No integration and no export of any kind; content can only be viewed on the vendor's board.
3 — Export as image or PDF and a few named integrations; an API, imports and structured export are basic or not described.
5 — Apps for at least Teams or Zoom and Slack, an integration with Jira or another work tool, embedding a board in other tools, export as PDF, image and CSV of the notes, and a documented API.
8 — A two-way sync with Jira or Azure DevOps that keeps cards and issues aligned, a REST API with webhooks covering boards and items, import from other whiteboards documented, an export in an editable or open format, and a marketplace or app framework for extensions.
10 — Integration and exit both complete: an API that can read and write everything the board holds, a full account export in an open format that another tool imports with structure kept, SDKs or an embeddable board for own applications, and the export and deletion on termination documented.
The Workshop Facilitator
Moving house from Miro, Mural or Conceptboard is documented step by step with an object-by-object mapping, and PDFs import as editable elements — good for migrating my template kits — alongside named apps for Teams, Webex, Jira, Confluence and Nextcloud, a public API with keys and an MCP server. I found no public information on a two-way Jira sync, webhooks, Slack or Zoom apps, or an export of the notes as CSV or an image; export is described as PDF. 1 2 6 16 17
The Product Team Lead
The named set — Teams, Webex, Pexip, Nextcloud, Rocket.Chat, Jira, Confluence, an MCP server and a public API with expiring keys — plus an unusually detailed Miro import (with an honest object-mapping table) is a good start for migrating off another board. But for my teams the Jira side is documented only as embeddable boards and importable issues: we found no public information on a two-way sync that keeps cards and issues aligned, and none on webhooks, a CSV export of notes, or an export in an editable open format. 1 2 3 16 17
The Microsoft 365 Admin
Named integrations cover Teams, Webex, Confluence, Jira, Nextcloud and Rocket.Chat plus a public API with user-bound keys and expiry dates, and imports from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard are documented down to the object mapping, with sticky notes, text, shapes, images and lines remaining editable after import. We found no public information on a two-way Jira sync, webhooks, CSV export of notes, or an editable export format; the Miro path is a vector-PDF import and kanban boards and mind maps arrive as images to be rebuilt. That the Teams integration also works on-premises is the detail that matters to us. 1 2 16 17
The Works Council Member
Imports from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard are documented with a full object mapping, imported PDFs convert into editable elements, boards embed in Confluence and Nextcloud, Jira issues are importable, and a public API with user-tied, expiring keys is described. Export is documented as vector PDF. We found no public information on webhooks, a two-way sync with Jira or Azure DevOps, or export as image or CSV of the notes. 16 1 2 17 6
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Teams, Webex, Pexip, Nextcloud, Rocket.Chat, Stashcat, Jira and Confluence integrations are named, the Teams app supports on-premises hosting, and import from Miro, Mural and Conceptboard is documented step by step with an object mapping. We found no public information on webhooks, a two-way Jira sync, or an export in CSV or another editable format beyond PDF, which is the exit path procurement will ask about. 1 2 3 16 17
The Skeptic
Import from other whiteboards is documented unusually honestly — Miro, Mural and Conceptboard, with an object mapping that shows Kanban boards and mind maps arriving as images — alongside Teams, Webex, Jira, Confluence, Nextcloud and a public API with API keys. The exit story is thin: the documented export is a vector PDF, and we found no public information on CSV export of notes, webhooks, or an export in an editable format another tool can open. 1 2 3 6 16 17
Sharing, permissions & administration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who can see and change a board and how the organisation controls it: sharing by link with expiry and password, guest and external-user rules, roles per board, project and team, default sharing settings set by the admin, single sign-on (SAML, OpenID Connect), user provisioning (SCIM), domain capture and control of shadow accounts, audit logs, content retention and legal hold, transfer of boards when a person leaves, and admin reports.
0 — No accounts or permissions; anyone with a board's address can see and edit it, with no way to restrict it.
3 — Boards are shared with named people or by link with view or edit rights; admin controls, SSO and audit are basic or not described.
5 — Roles per board and per team, link sharing that can be restricted or switched off, guest access controlled by the admin, single sign-on with SAML, a user and board admin console, and boards transferred when a person leaves.
8 — SCIM provisioning, domain capture of existing accounts, sharing policies set centrally (no public links, guests only from allowed domains), audit logs exportable to a SIEM, retention rules and legal hold, data classification labels on boards, and admin roles split by scope.
10 — Administration that a regulated organisation can sign off: every sharing and access setting the admin controls listed with its effect, complete audit trails with a stated retention, eDiscovery and export for investigations, delegated administration across subsidiaries, and every control documented in the help centre.
The Workshop Facilitator
Roles from owner to reader on boards and in spaces, password-protected and time-limited links with separate expiry values for guests, central sharing policies such as disabling guest invitations or requiring passwords on shared projects, a fully documented SCIM connection, and an audit log across ten categories with user and IP, exportable as CSV and retained 365 days in the German environment or 90 days elsewhere. I found no public information on domain capture, content retention or legal hold, classification labels, or transferring a person's boards when they leave. 2 7 18 19 20
The Product Team Lead
Board roles (owner, moderator, editor, reader), password-protected and time-limited links, SCIM with documented endpoints and licence-group assignment, and a tenant-wide audit log exportable as CSV with 365-day retention in the German environment give my admins most of what they need. Central sharing policies — disabling email invitations, enforcing passwords for guests, disabling API keys — apply immediately to everyone in the tenant. We found no public information on domain capture of existing accounts, content retention or legal hold, or how a person's boards are transferred when they leave. 2 6 7 18 19 20
The Microsoft 365 Admin
SCIM is documented in full for users and groups with licenses assigned by group, single sign-on with SAML and OAuth2 is stated, and centrally set security flags — disabling guest invitations, requiring passwords on shared projects, separate link expiry for registered users and guests — take effect immediately for everyone in the tenant including connected free users. Audit logs cover the whole tenant, export as CSV with user, IP and action, and are kept 90 days on the global and Swiss environments or 365 days on the German one. We found no public information on domain capture for existing free accounts on our company addresses, content retention and legal hold, classification labels, or board transfer when someone leaves. 7 18 19 20
The Works Council Member
Roles for owner, moderator, editor and reader, password-protected boards, time-limited links with separate expiry for registered users and guests, and centrally enforced sharing policies — guest invitations and email invitations can be switched off across the tenant — are all documented. SCIM provisioning is described in detail, and the audit log covers the whole tenant with user, IP address and action per event, exportable as CSV and kept 90 days on the web and Swiss environments and 365 days on the German one — the kind of record a works council must see before any tool that shows who did what goes live. We found no public information on domain capture, legal hold, or what happens to a person's boards when they leave. 18 19 20 7 2
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Roles for owner, moderator, editor and reader, password-protected boards, time-limited links with separate expiry values for guests, SAML and OAuth single sign-on, and detailed SCIM and LDAP provisioning are published, and tenant-wide audit logs export as CSV with stated retention of 90 days on web and Swiss environments and 365 days on the German one. We found no public information on domain capture, retention rules or legal hold, data classification labels, or transfer of boards when a person leaves. 7 18 19 20
The Skeptic
SCIM is documented in depth (the entire scope except bulk, with group-based license assignment), sharing policies are set centrally — required passwords, disabled guest invitations, disabled API keys, link expiry with separate values for registered users and guests — and audit logs cover authentication, projects, spaces and templates, exportable as CSV with a stated retention of 90 days for WEB and CH and 365 days for DE. We found no public information on domain capture, streaming audit logs to a SIEM, content retention and legal hold, or transferring a person's boards when they leave. 2 7 18 19 20
Security, AI controls & deployment
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the content of the boards is protected and where the product can run: encryption in transit and at rest, customer-managed encryption keys, a dedicated or private-cloud tenant and an on-premises edition, AI features that the admin can switch off and that do not train on customer boards, which AI providers process board content, data loss prevention, deletion of boards and accounts with stated periods, and whether individual activity (logins, contributions, time on board) is tracked and shown to managers, with a statement for works councils. Who processes the data and where, and the certifications, are scored under sovereignty.
0 — Content is not protected in transit, or boards are used for the vendor's own purposes by default with no way to opt out.
3 — Encryption is mentioned and the product is described as secure or GDPR-compliant; AI use, deletion and deployment options are basic or not described.
5 — Encryption in transit and at rest stated, AI features that the admin can switch off, a statement that customer content is not used to train AI models, deletion of boards and accounts with a stated period, and a security page describing the measures.
8 — Customer-managed keys or a dedicated tenant, a private-cloud or on-premises edition documented, the AI providers that process board content named with their location, data loss prevention or classification controls, individual activity tracking described with what managers can see, and a statement or template for works council agreements.
10 — Protection that can be verified: client-side or end-to-end encryption for boards with the method published, an on-premises or sovereign-cloud edition with feature parity stated, no AI processing outside the customer's chosen region, a published penetration test summary, and every security and AI control listed with its effect.
The Workshop Facilitator
TLS in transit and 256-bit AES at rest, two-factor authentication, a Confidential Cloud that keeps data encrypted even during processing, and deployment options I can put in a client email — on-premises, air-gapped, private cloud, government clouds and a virtual appliance installable in a few hours, with own certificates. On AI the captured pages show it exists and appears in audit logs, but I found no public statement that boards are not used to train AI models, on switching AI off, on which providers process it, or a works-council statement; deletion on termination is stated without a period. 2 5 7 10 18
The Product Team Lead
The deployment story is the strongest part: on-premises including air-gapped, private cloud, government clouds, a virtual appliance compatible with Kubernetes, OpenShift or Proxmox, plus TLS in transit, 256-bit AES at rest and a Confidential Cloud with encryption during processing. On AI governance we found no public information on which providers process board content, on a statement that customer content does not train AI models, or on a works-council statement; deletion of user data on termination is stated but without a period, and no customer-managed keys are described. 2 4 5 7 10 20
The Microsoft 365 Admin
TLS in transit and 256-bit AES at rest are stated, all user data is deleted when the contract ends, and functions can be activated or deactivated centrally according to data protection regulations with those changes appearing in the audit log. The deployment story is the strongest part: a virtual appliance installed in hours, air-gapped environments, government clouds and compatibility with Kubernetes, OpenShift or Proxmox. We found no public information naming which AI providers process board content, stating that customer boards do not train AI models, on data loss prevention, or on what managers can see of individual activity — exactly the answers legal needs before any AI feature is enabled. 2 5 7 10 20
The Works Council Member
Individual activity is described plainly: an activity logbook tracks all actions on a board and the audit log records who viewed, changed or exported a project with IP address, downloadable by subscription owners and managers — exactly what we assess under co-determination before rollout. Encryption in transit and at rest, own certificates, a confidential-cloud option and an on-premises, air-gapped edition are stated, and deletion of all user data on termination is promised, though without a stated period. We found no public information on an admin switch for AI features, on whether board content trains AI models, or on which AI providers process it — the audit log names AI actions such as sticky note detection but says nothing about their data use. 2 18 7 5 10
The Public-Sector Project Lead
TLS in transit and 256-bit AES at rest are stated, functions can be deactivated for the whole tenant, and deployment in our own data centre is genuinely documented: virtual appliance, air-gapped operation, Kubernetes and OpenShift compatibility, even the customer's own AWS or Azure account. We found no public information on which AI providers process board content, a statement that boards are not used to train AI models, deletion periods, a works council agreement template, or a penetration test summary. 2 5 7 10 20
The Skeptic
Encryption in transit (TLS) and at rest (256-bit AES) are stated, and deployment is the strong part: on-premises with air-gapped support, a virtual appliance, AWS GovCloud or Azure Government, and a confidential-cloud mode that encrypts data even during processing. The AI story goes quiet exactly where I look: Collaboard AI and an MCP server for AI workflows are offered, but we found no public information on an admin switch for AI, on which providers process board content or where, or on a statement that boards do not train models — and the captured pages promise deletion of all user data on termination but give no period. 1 2 4 5 7 10 18
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where boards, files and user data are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, CDN, real-time collaboration servers, AI providers, email, support and payment tools). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; boards hold personal data of participants and often of customers, so the whole chain counts, not only the database. An on-premises or self-hosted edition the customer runs on its own European servers counts as the customer's chain, whatever the vendor's seat.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.
5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (AI features, CDN, real-time servers, email, support, payment) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard, or EU residency is an option of the top tier only.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5, SOC 2) stated — or an on-premises edition documented that keeps every board on the customer's own servers.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor including AI, or an on-premises or open-source edition with no call home, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.
The Workshop Facilitator
The contracting entity is IBV in Bonstetten with a registered German company in Lörrach, boards run in Azure Netherlands, Azure Switzerland or the German Open Telekom Cloud under Telekom Deutschland, the data processing agreement is published under Article 28(3) GDPR with subprocessors named by street address, and an on-premises or air-gapped edition keeps every board on the customer's own servers — a straight answer for the client who asks where the board sits before the session. I found no public information on security certifications such as ISO 27001, BSI C5 or SOC 2, the Global environment lists SendGrid in San Francisco for email, payment runs through Stripe, and the privacy policy notes HubSpot may transfer data to the United States while stating it is not used for the German and Swiss hosting. 5 8 9 11 21
The Product Team Lead
This is why I would shortlist them: the contracting entity is IBV in Bonstetten with a German company in Lörrach, boards can live in Azure Netherlands, Azure Switzerland or the German Open Telekom Cloud, and the published data processing agreement lists each subprocessor with its address, with HubSpot and Google Analytics excluded from the German and Swiss environments. An on-premises edition documented down to air-gapped deployments and government clouds keeps every board on the customer's own servers, and data export plus deletion on termination are documented. What the captured pages do not show is any certification such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5 with its scope. 5 8 9 10 11 21
The Microsoft 365 Admin
The contracting entity is IBV in Bonstetten, Switzerland, with a registered German office in Lörrach, and the published data processing agreement lists subprocessors with street addresses: Microsoft Azure in the Netherlands and Switzerland, Open Telekom Cloud in Bonn, Flowmailer in Rotterdam for German and Swiss hosting, with contract data processed exclusively in the EU, EEA or Switzerland. HubSpot and Google Analytics are excluded from the German and Swiss environments, though SendGrid in the United States handles email on the global one, and German or Swiss hosting is offered only on the Advanced and Enterprise tiers. We found no public information on security certifications, but the documented on-premises edition that keeps every board on our own servers is the sovereign option our factory data can rest on. 4 5 8 11
The Works Council Member
The contracting entity is IBV Informatik AG in Bonstetten, Switzerland, with a registered German office in Lörrach, and boards run on named infrastructure: Microsoft Azure in the Netherlands or Switzerland, or Open Telekom Cloud with Telekom Deutschland GmbH in Bonn; the published data processing agreement commits to processing only in the EU, EEA or Switzerland and lists subprocessors with their addresses. A documented on-premises, air-gapped edition keeps every board on the customer's own servers, and German and Swiss hosting exclude HubSpot and Google Analytics. We found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2, and the AI providers in the chain are unnamed. 11 8 5 4 9
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Contracting entity IBV in Bonstetten has a registered German office in Lörrach, the published Article 28(3) agreement lists subprocessors with addresses, and the German environment runs on Open Telekom Cloud with HubSpot and Google Analytics explicitly excluded from German and Swiss hosting; an on-premises edition keeps every board on the customer's own servers. We found no public information on BSI C5, ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certifications, and the global environment's chain includes SendGrid in San Francisco with possible HubSpot transfer to the United States, so I would contract only the German or on-premises environment. 4 5 8 9 11 21
The Skeptic
The chain is laid out with unusual honesty: the contracting entity is IBV in Bonstetten with a German office in Lörrach, hosting runs on named infrastructure (Azure Netherlands or Switzerland, Open Telekom Cloud in Germany, with an environment table per login URL), and the published Article 28 agreement lists subprocessors with street addresses and locations — including SendGrid in San Francisco for email in the global environment, while DE and CH hosting excludes HubSpot and Google Analytics. On-premises deployment, air-gapped included, is documented for the Enterprise tier, which keeps every board on the customer's own servers. What keeps it from the top: we found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001, BSI C5 or SOC 2, and German or Swiss hosting is available only from the Advanced tier upward. 4 5 8 9 11 21
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per user and tier, how guests, viewers and external participants are counted, limits of the free plan (number of boards, objects, members), which features (SSO, SCIM, audit logs, EU data residency, AI credits, on-premises) cost extra, the enterprise tier's price or minimum, annual versus monthly billing, minimum seats and term.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free plan exists, but how cost scales with users, guests or features is unclear.
5 — Tiers are public with their price per user and main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, EU data residency, guests, AI credits, the enterprise tier) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (members, guests, boards), free-plan limits stated, add-ons and AI credits priced, the on-premises or dedicated edition's cost or licence stated, minimum seats, term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given team size, guest count and feature set, with every add-on, setup, support and AI fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.
The Workshop Facilitator
The tiers are public with their scaling for participants and guests spelled out — Free at $0/month with 3 boards and 5 participants, Basic at $6/user per month billed yearly with 50 participants and 20 editing guests, Advanced at $11.50/user per month billed yearly with unlimited participants and guests — plus EUR prices excluding VAT, a 12-month term and one month's notice. What I cannot compute: Enterprise, the tier carrying SSO, SCIM, audit logs and self-hosting, is 'custom pricing', the German hosting surcharge has no figure, and I found no public information on AI pricing, monthly rates or minimum seats. 6 10
The Product Team Lead
Free, Basic at "$6/user per month billed yearly" and Advanced at "$11.50/user per month billed yearly" come with concrete limits — 3 boards and 5 participants free, 50 participants and 20 guest editors on Basic, unlimited on Advanced — so the mid tiers are computable, and terms (12 months, one month's notice, VAT excluded) are published. The catch for us: SSO, SCIM, audit logs and self-hosting all sit in the Enterprise tier at "Custom pricing", and German hosting is an unquantified additional charge. The captured pages also give different figures for currency — the pricing page shows dollar amounts while the terms state all prices are in Euro. 6 10 21
The Microsoft 365 Admin
The tiers are public with their per-user prices — Basic at $6/user per month billed yearly and Advanced at $11.50/user per month billed yearly — plus free-plan limits of up to 3 whiteboards and 5 participants per board, and stated terms: annual contracts with 1 month's notice, automatic renewal, prices exclusive of VAT. The pricing page shows these amounts in dollars while the terms state that all prices are in euro, and everything we would need — single sign-on, SCIM, audit logs, self-hosting, German hosting at an unstated additional charge — sits in the Enterprise tier at custom pricing. I cannot compute the annual cost for 2,400 staff from the public pages, so it is a sales call. 6 10 21
The Works Council Member
Free, Basic and Advanced tiers are published with per-user monthly prices (Basic $6, Advanced $11.50, each billed yearly) and unusually clear limits per tier — boards, participants, guest editors and upload size — while the terms state annual commitment, one month's notice, and prices in Euro exclusive of VAT. Enterprise, the tier that carries single sign-on, audit logs and self-hosting, is custom pricing, and German hosting is available for an additional charge with no amount given. We found no public information on monthly-billed rates, minimum seats or AI fees. 6 10
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Free, Basic at "$6/user per month billed yearly" and Advanced at "$11.50/user per month billed yearly" are public with participant, guest and upload limits, VAT treatment and cancellation terms, but the Enterprise tier holding single sign-on, SCIM, audit logs and self-hosting is "Custom pricing", the German hosting surcharge carries no figure, and we found no public information on minimum seats or the on-premises licence cost. The captured pages give different figures for currency: the pricing page states dollar amounts while the terms state that all prices are in Euro (EUR) exclusive of VAT. 6 10
The Skeptic
Three tiers are public with per-user prices ($6/user per month billed yearly for Basic, $11.50/user per month billed yearly for Advanced), the free plan's limits are stated (3 whiteboards, 5 participants per board), and participants, guest editors and upload limits are stated per tier — with a 12-month term, 1 month's notice and prices exclusive of VAT in the terms. The enterprise tier is 'Custom pricing', German hosting is 'available for an additional charge' whose amount the captured pages do not give, and we found no public information on minimum seats or a monthly billing price; the captured pages also give different figures for the currency, the pricing page showing dollars while the terms state prices in Euro. 6 10 16
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Collaboard
Is Collaboard European?
Yes, though not from the EU. whats-best.ai classifies Collaboard as UK / wider Europe.
Where does Collaboard store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
Does Collaboard have a free plan?
Yes. Collaboard has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Collaboard?
As of 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Miro (3.5/5), Klaxoon (3/5) and FigJam (3/5) highest among the other 12 Online Whiteboard 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 Klaxoon (EU origin, foreign-owned, United States). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Collaboard alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Hosting location, Hosting options. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 36 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 11 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 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 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 subprocessors 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 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (21)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Integrations page www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Features page (hosting options) www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Features page (on-premises and self-hosting) www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Pricing page www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Security / trust page www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Legal notice www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Privacy policy www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Terms of service www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Data processing agreement (dpa) www.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Canvas, templates & content — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 13 Canvas, templates & content — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 14 Workshop facilitation & participation — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 15 Workshop facilitation & participation — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 16 Integrations, import & export — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 17 Integrations, import & export — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 18 Sharing, permissions & administration — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 19 Sharing, permissions & administration — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 20 Security, AI controls & deployment — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 21 Security, AI controls & deployment — found from sitemap help.collaboard.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →