Online Whiteboard
Lucidspark
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lucid Software Inc. · lucid.co
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.
Lucidspark at a glance
- Vendor
- Lucid Software Inc.
- 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 Lucidspark 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Lucidspark, the online whiteboard of Lucid Software Inc. 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
Lucidspark, the online whiteboard of Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, comes out strongest on administration and weakest on sovereignty and pricing transparency. Access and administration is the highest column at 7-8, resting on SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning on Enterprise accounts, domain control and verification, and Enterprise Shield with audit logs, litigation hold and customer-managed keys. Canvas and content, facilitation, integrations and export, and security and deployment all sit at 6-7, while sovereignty stands at 4 and pricing transparency at 5. No criterion spans more than a point; where those single-point gaps appear, judges cite the same absences — no public information on anonymous note modes, participant limits, named export formats or the AI vendors — and weight them differently. The sovereignty score follows from a US contracting entity, US hosting unless expressly agreed otherwise with an EU data centre only by configuration, and the Data Privacy Framework as the primary transfer mechanism; pricing transparency stalls on the Enterprise tier's Contact-sales entry and undescribed guest counting.
Speaks for it
- Workshop facilitation is documented end to end — guest collaborators, breakout boards, voting sessions, timers on Team plans, a visual agenda with pre-meeting input, sharing via Slack, Zoom and Microsoft Teams.
- Two-way data sync with Jira, Azure DevOps and airfocus, whiteboard import from Miro, Mural and FigJam, and a public REST API with a developer portal and a marketplace of more than 100 custom-built integrations.
- SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning on Enterprise accounts and domain control and verification, extended by Enterprise Shield with audit logs, litigation hold, control of inbound and outbound external sharing and customer-managed keys via Lucid KMS.
- AI generates, sorts and summarises notes and admins can switch it off, with a stated policy that customer data is not used to train generative AI models available to third parties.
- Self-serve prices are public with VAT excluded — Free at €0 with 3 editable Lucidspark boards, Individual at €9 per month when billed yearly, Team at €10 / user per month when billed yearly.
Held against it
- The Enterprise tier is Contact sales, with no public information on how guests or external participants are counted, on minimum seats or on the term, so the real annual cost is not computable from public pages.
- We found no public information on export formats — no PDF, image or CSV export is named — or on webhooks, so content exit stays vague.
- Sovereignty scores sit at 4 on a US contracting entity, US hosting unless expressly agreed otherwise with an EU data centre available only by configuration, and the Data Privacy Framework as the primary transfer mechanism.
- AI providers are identified only as unnamed vendors, with no public information on their names or locations.
- We found no public information on a private or anonymous mode for notes, on stated participant limits per session, or on an accessibility statement for the board.
Best for
- You run recurring workshops and retrospectives with external guests and need breakout boards, voting sessions, timers and a visual agenda.
- Your teams live in Jira or Azure DevOps and need a two-way data sync backed by a public REST API.
- You are moving from Miro, Mural or FigJam and need documented whiteboard import.
- You will negotiate an Enterprise contract and need SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, domain control, audit logs and litigation hold.
Avoid if
- You need a European contracting entity, or EU data residency as the default rather than a configuration option.
- Your procurement requires a computable annual cost from public pages before any vendor contact.
- You need SCIM provisioning or whole-board content locking without an Enterprise account.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Canvas, templates & content | 3.5 of 5 |
| Workshop facilitation & participation | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations, import & export | 3.5 of 5 |
| Sharing, permissions & administration | 3.5 of 5 |
| Security, AI controls & deployment | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 2.5 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 freehand drawing, sticky notes, connectors, dynamic tables and unlimited-branch mind maps, custom shape libraries, data import with auto-visualisation, and AI that generates, sorts (from six or more notes) and summarises — plus a library of hundreds of templates including a sprint retrospective and a facilitated brainstorm. I found no public information on search across boards, centrally managed organisation templates, or documented performance limits for large boards, which keeps this below the top levels. 1 2 6 7 8 11 12 13
The Product Team Lead
The board carries our kind of work: an infinite canvas with sticky notes, freehand drawing, connecting shapes and unlimited branches, dynamic tables, mind maps and Lucid Cards on one surface, hundreds of templates for retros and planning, custom shape libraries, and AI that sorts stickies and summarises the canvas — with a stated commitment that customer data is not used to train third-party models. Structured content arrives as Lucid Cards imported from task tools. We found no public information on search across boards, frames, video embeds or stated performance limits for large boards. 1 2 6 7 8 11
The Microsoft 365 Admin
The infinite canvas, sticky notes, connecting shapes, freehand drawing and hundreds of templates are documented, and it goes well past the basics with dynamic tables, mind maps, AI that sorts sticky notes and summarises the canvas, and Lucid Cards linked to records in Airtable, Asana or monday.com. Custom shape libraries and data import with auto-visualisation are described. We found no public information on kanban boards, templates managed centrally for the organisation, search across boards, or stated performance limits for large boards. 1 2 6 7 11
The Works Council Member
An infinite canvas with sticky notes, freehand drawing, dynamic tables, mind maps and Lucid Cards that import records from Airtable, Asana and monday.com, a template library in the hundreds including retrospectives, and AI that generates, sorts and summarises notes with its data use addressed (AI vendors process AI-accessed information, customer data trains no third-party models). We found no public information on search across all boards or stated performance limits for very large boards. 1 2 5 6 7 9
The Public-Sector Project Lead
An infinite canvas with sticky notes, freehand drawing, mind maps, dynamic tables and hundreds of templates including a sprint retrospective and a facilitated brainstorm is well documented, and the AI features that generate, sort and summarise notes come with a published statement that customer data is not used to train generative models. Custom shape libraries and data import with auto-visualisation extend this further. We found no public information on search across all boards, kanban, or documented performance limits for very large boards. 1 2 6 7 8 13
The Skeptic
An infinite canvas with sticky notes, freehand drawing, hundreds of templates, dynamic mind maps and dynamic tables is documented, and the AI genuinely sorts and summarises notes with its data use stated: customer data is not used to train generative AI models available to third parties. Cards imported as records from Airtable, Asana and monday.com approach structured data on the board. We found no public information on search across boards, offline work or board performance at a stated scale, so I stop short of the top. 1 2 7 8
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
Guest collaborators, voting sessions, timers on Team plans, breakout boards, a visual agenda with pre-meeting idea input, broadcast announcements, a laser pointer, emoji reactions and presentation mode are all documented, with sharing via Slack, Zoom and Teams. I found no public information on a private or anonymous mode for brainstorming, stated participant limits, an accessibility statement for the board, or exportable voting results. 1 2 3 7 13 15
The Product Team Lead
The facilitation kit covers a real workshop: guest collaborators, breakout boards, timers, voting sessions, a visual agenda that collects ideas before the meeting, broadcast, a laser pointer, presentation mode, and content locking on Enterprise, with Team plans adding chat and further facilitator tools. We found no public information on a private or anonymous mode for notes, on bringing everyone to the facilitator's view, on stated participant limits, or on an accessibility statement for the board. 1 2 3 7 13
The Microsoft 365 Admin
Guest collaborators, breakout boards, voting sessions, timers, a laser pointer, broadcast announcements and visual agendas are all documented, and sharing runs through Slack, Zoom and Microsoft Teams, which matters since our workshops live in Teams. Content locking is documented but only on Enterprise accounts. We found no public information on an anonymous or private note mode, export of voting results, stated participant limits per session, or an accessibility statement for the board itself. 1 2 3 7 13
The Works Council Member
Guest collaborators, breakout boards, visual agendas, broadcast, laser pointer, voting sessions and timers on Team plans are documented, alongside retrospective and facilitated-brainstorm templates. For a works council the gaps matter: we found no public information on a private or anonymous mode for notes, participant limits per session, or an accessibility statement for the board itself. 1 3 7 13
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Guest Collaborators, a timer, voting sessions, presentation mode, breakout boards, a visual agenda and sharing via Slack, Zoom and Microsoft Teams cover the core of a workshop with external authorities. Content locking exists but makes an entire board uneditable on Enterprise accounts, and we found no public information on a private or anonymous note mode, participant limits per session, or an accessibility statement for the board — a gap my equalities office will not accept. 1 2 3 7 13
The Skeptic
Guest collaborators, a timer, voting sessions, breakout boards, a visual agenda with pre-meeting input, presentation mode and whole-board content locking on Enterprise accounts are all documented, and the board reaches meetings through Slack, Zoom and Microsoft Teams. But three things a real workshop leans on are undocumented here: we found no public information on a private or anonymous mode for notes, on participant limits per session, or on an accessibility statement for the board itself. 1 2 3 7 13
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
A two-way data sync with Jira and Azure DevOps, import from Miro, Mural and FigJam, more than 100 custom-built integrations, a marketplace, and a public REST API with a developer portal and OAuth credentials are all documented. Webhooks and an export in an editable or open format another tool can open are not described on the captured pages. 2 4 5 6 8 17
The Product Team Lead
The two-way data sync with Jira and Azure DevOps — in Cloud and Data Center editions — is exactly what my teams need, backed by a public API that creates, reads and updates documents, a developer platform with an extension API and OAuth 2.0, a marketplace of integrations, task import from Airtable, Asana and monday.com, and whiteboard import from Miro, Mural and FigJam. We found no public information on webhooks or an export in an editable open format — the developer pages speak only generally of importing and exporting information — which weakens the story for when the company switches tools. 2 6 7 8 15 17
The Microsoft 365 Admin
Two-way sync with Jira, Azure DevOps and airfocus, import of existing boards from Miro, Mural and FigJam, a public API that creates, reads and updates Lucidspark documents, a developer platform and a marketplace of more than a hundred custom-built integrations give this real depth around Teams and our DevOps tooling. Embedding into Confluence, Google and Microsoft is documented, and a sharing API includes a content-transfer operation. Export is only described in general terms: we found no public information on PDF or image export, CSV of the notes, an editable open format, or webhooks. 2 4 5 6 8 18
The Works Council Member
A two-way sync with Jira, Azure DevOps and airfocus, whiteboard import from Miro, Mural and FigJam, a marketplace of over a hundred apps and a public API that creates, reads and updates documents cover most of what we would need around the board. The captured pages do not describe webhooks or a named export format such as PDF, image or a CSV of the notes, so content exit stays vague. 2 4 5 6 8 15 16
The Public-Sector Project Lead
A two-way data sync with Jira, Azure DevOps and airfocus, whiteboard file import from Miro, Mural and FigJam, more than 100 integrations with a marketplace, and a public REST API with a developer platform are documented. Export is described only as importing and exporting information from Lucid; we found no public information on PDF, image or CSV export of board content or on webhooks, which matters for our archiving duties. 2 4 6 8 17
The Skeptic
The connective tissue is strong: a two-way data sync with Jira, Azure DevOps and airfocus, import from Miro, Mural and FigJam, embeds into Confluence, Google and Microsoft, plus a public REST API, a developer portal and a marketplace. But on the exit side we found no public information on export formats — no PDF, image or CSV export is named on the captured pages — and no public information on webhooks or a full account export, so I cannot verify what leaving would actually preserve. 2 4 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
SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning on Enterprise, domain control and verification, an admin panel with Account Owner and Team Admin roles, API keys the admin can prohibit, and Enterprise Shield bringing audit logs, litigation hold and control of inbound and outbound external sharing. I found no public information on exporting audit logs to a SIEM or on data classification labels for boards; transfer of content is documented through a Transfer Content endpoint. 8 17 18 20
The Product Team Lead
SAML SSO, SCIM provisioning and domain control and verification are stated, plus role-based permissions, Account Owner and Team Admin roles, and admin password policy controls. Enterprise Shield documents audit logs and revision history, litigation hold and document discovery, centrally managed inbound and outbound external sharing, data exfiltration protection, IP allow lists and session timeouts, and a Transfer Content endpoint for when someone leaves. We found no public information on data classification labels on boards or on exporting audit logs to a SIEM. 8 17 18 19 20
The Microsoft 365 Admin
SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, domain control and verification, role-based permissions and admin password controls are documented — most of what I need to capture the 600 free accounts sitting on our company domains. Enterprise Shield adds audit logs with revision history, control of inbound and outbound sharing with external users, litigation hold, session timeouts with an IP allow list, and bulk permission automation. We found no public information on feeding audit logs to a SIEM, organisation-wide retention rules for boards, or classification labels, and SCIM is limited to Enterprise accounts. 8 17 18 19 20
The Works Council Member
SAML single sign-on with SCIM provisioning on Enterprise, domain control and verification, role-based permissions, an admin panel that can prohibit API keys and restrict cross-account and external sharing, plus audit logs, revision history, litigation hold and document discovery under Enterprise Shield, with named admin roles such as Account Owner and Team Admin. This is close to what a regulated organisation can sign off; we found no public information on audit-log export to a SIEM or admin-set retention rules for board content. 8 17 18 19 20
The Public-Sector Project Lead
SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning on Enterprise accounts, domain control and verification, role-based permissions with Account Owner and Team Admin roles, central control of inbound and outbound external sharing, audit logs with litigation hold under Enterprise Shield, and a Transfer Content endpoint cover most of what my administrative colleagues would demand. We found no public information on account-wide default sharing settings, export of audit logs to a SIEM, or admin-set retention rules. 8 17 18 20
The Skeptic
SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, domain control and verification, role-based permissions and an admin console are documented, and the paid Enterprise Shield add-on layers on audit logs with revision history, litigation hold and document discovery, control of inbound and outbound external sharing, and session timeouts with an IP allow list. The strongest controls sit behind that add-on or the Enterprise tier, and we found no public information on link sharing with expiry and password, admin-set default sharing rules, or exporting audit logs to a SIEM. 5 8 17 18 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
Encryption in transit and at rest (AES-256), AI features the admin can switch off with a stated policy that customer data is not used to train third-party models, annual third-party penetration tests with 30-day remediation, and a documented customer-managed key service using envelope encryption with a whitepaper. I found no public information on an on-premises or private-cloud edition, on the names and locations of the AI vendors, or on whether individual activity is tracked and shown to managers. 8 9 19 20
The Product Team Lead
Encryption in transit and at rest with AES-256 is stated, AI is optional and admins can switch it off, customer data is said not to train third-party models, and an annual third-party penetration test with 30-day remediation of critical and high findings sits alongside SOC 2, ISO 27701 and FedRAMP Moderate. Enterprise Shield adds customer-managed keys through Lucid KMS with envelope encryption, where Lucid employees never hold the customer's key. We found no public information on a dedicated tenant or on-premises edition, on which AI providers process board content, on individual activity tracking, or on works council statements. 2 8 9 19 20
The Microsoft 365 Admin
Encryption in transit and at rest with AES-256 is stated, admins can turn AI off at any time, and customer data is stated not to train generative models available to third parties — exactly what I need while legal reviews the terms. Enterprise Shield brings customer-held keys through a key management service using envelope encryption in AWS KMS with a whitepaper, plus data exfiltration protection, and an annual third-party penetration test with 30-day remediation of critical and high findings is documented. We found no public information on a private-cloud or on-premises edition, the AI vendors are described only as unnamed providers, no deletion period is stated for boards and accounts, and nothing addresses what managers can see of individual activity or works councils. 8 9 19 20
The Works Council Member
Encryption in transit and at rest, AI the admin can switch off with a statement that customer data trains no generative models, customer-managed keys through Enterprise Shield using envelope encryption in AWS KMS, support access to documents only via a customer-granted security PIN, and logs archived for at least 180 days. Two things keep me from signing this off: the AI vendors that process AI-accessed board content are not named, and there is no description of individual activity tracking or what a manager can see of contributions, nor any works council statement — and we found no public information on an on-premises or private-cloud edition. 8 9 17 19 20
The Public-Sector Project Lead
Encryption in transit and at rest with AES-256, AI features admins can switch off, a statement that customer data is not used to train generative models, annual third-party penetration tests and customer-managed keys via Lucid KMS with envelope encryption are documented alongside FedRAMP Moderate and SOC 2. The AI vendors that process board content are named only as "our vendors", and we found no public information on an on-premises or private-cloud edition, on BSI C5, on deletion periods for individual boards, or on individual activity tracking and works council matters — so the state data centre route procurement wants is not in these pages. 2 8 9 19 20
The Skeptic
Encryption in transit and at rest with AES-256 is stated, admins can turn AI off at any time, customer data is said not to train generative models available to third parties, and Enterprise Shield adds customer-held keys through envelope encryption in AWS KMS that Lucid employees reportedly cannot reach. But the privacy policy identifies the AI providers only as "our vendors that provide artificial intelligence functionality" — no names, no locations — and we found no public information on a dedicated, private-cloud or on-premises edition, or on what managers can see of individual activity. 2 8 9 19 20
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
Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah is the contracting entity, the privacy policy describes United States-based hosting with data possibly processed in other countries, and the Data Privacy Framework is the primary transfer mechanism; an EU data centre exists but only by configuration, so my client's question about where the board is stored needs that option actively set. A publicly accessible subprocessor list is maintained and a data processing addendum is offered to Enterprise customers, but the captured pages show no EU contracting entity. 8 9 17 19
The Product Team Lead
Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah is the vendor, and the privacy policy describes a US-based service that may host, transfer and process data in the United States and other countries, with an EU data center available by configuration — on which, per the developer pages, API development is currently unavailable. A public subprocessor list exists and the privacy policy names categories including large language models and US analytics providers, but we found no public information on those providers' locations, and the Data Privacy Framework is named as the primary transfer mechanism. For a European buyer this is a US chain with EU residency as a selectable option rather than the default. 8 9 17
The Microsoft 365 Admin
The contracting entity is Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, and the privacy policy states data may be hosted and processed in the United States and other countries unless expressly agreed otherwise, on AWS, with a public subprocessor list and a data processing addendum for Enterprise customers. Transfers rely on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, with Standard Contractual Clauses and adequacy decisions available, and AI-processed content goes to unnamed vendors. The only European entity in the picture is airfocus GmbH in Hamburg, a subsidiary covered by the same privacy policy rather than an EU contracting route for Lucidspark itself. 8 9 19
The Works Council Member
Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah is the contracting entity, and the privacy policy states data may be hosted and processed in the United States and other countries unless expressly agreed otherwise, even though the security pages describe AWS regions in Germany and Ireland that admins can select and the EU data centre exists. A public subprocessor list, an Enterprise data processing addendum, DPF certification and SCCs are documented, but no EU contracting entity or representative appears on the captured pages and subprocessor locations are not shown, so the chain our retrospective notes travel stays largely non-European by default. 2 8 9 17 19
The Public-Sector Project Lead
The contracting entity is Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, subject to FTC enforcement and certified under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and the privacy policy states that unless expressly agreed otherwise data may be hosted, transferred and processed in the United States and other countries. An EU data centre, a public subprocessor list and a Data Processing Addendum for Enterprise customers exist, but transfers rest on Standard Contractual Clauses and the Data Privacy Framework rather than a European entity. We found no public information on BSI C5 or an on-premises edition, so the captured pages do not show the chain my data protection officer could sign. 8 9 17 19
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, and the privacy policy states data may be hosted, transferred and processed in the United States and other countries; an EU data center is documented as an available configuration, though API development is currently unavailable on it. A public subprocessor list exists, a Data Processing Addendum is referenced for Enterprise customers, and SOC 2, ISO 27701 and FedRAMP are stated. But the named chain is American — AWS, Google Analytics, Microsoft — the AI providers go unlisted by name, and we found no public information on an EU contracting entity or EU representative. 2 8 9 17 19
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
Free at €0, Individual at €9 per month when billed yearly and Team at €10 / user per month when billed yearly are all public with VAT excluded, the free plan's 3 editable Lucidspark boards and unlimited shapes are stated, monthly or annual billing is offered, and AI is currently included but may become paid. The Enterprise tier is Contact sales, and I found no public information on how guests or external participants are counted, on minimum seats or on the term. 7
The Product Team Lead
Every self-serve tier is public: the free plan at €0 with three editable boards and unlimited shapes, Individual at €9 per month when billed yearly, and Team at €10 / user per month when billed yearly with voting, timers and chat — VAT excluded, monthly or annual billing, a seven-day trial with payment details at signup, and AI currently free to all users though it may move to a paid subscription. The Enterprise tier is "Contact sales", and we found no public information on how guests or viewers are counted, on Enterprise Shield's price, or on minimum seats and term, so a real annual cost is not computable from the public pages. 7 14
The Microsoft 365 Admin
Free at €0, Individual at €9 per month when billed yearly, Team at €10 per user per month when billed yearly, VAT excluded, plus free-plan limits of three editable Lucidspark boards and a choice of monthly or annual billing — that much is public. But the Enterprise tier is "Contact sales", so single sign-on, SCIM, audit logs and the Enterprise Shield security add-on carry no public price, and AI is currently free but may become a paid subscription. For 2,400 staff I cannot compute the real annual cost from public pages. 7 17
The Works Council Member
Free, Individual at €9 per month when billed yearly, and Team at €10 per user per month when billed yearly are published with VAT excluded, free-plan limits of 3 editable boards are stated, and the pages say AI is currently free to all users but may become a paid subscription. The Enterprise tier is contact-sales only and guest, viewer and external-participant counting is not described, so the real annual cost for our setup cannot be computed from public pages alone. 7 8
The Public-Sector Project Lead
The tiers are public — Free at €0 with 3 editable Lucidspark boards and unlimited shapes per board, Individual at €9 per month when billed yearly, Team at €10 / user per month when billed yearly with voting, timers and chat, and Enterprise as "Contact sales" with VAT excluded — and monthly or annual billing with a 7-day trial is described. How guests, viewers and external participants are counted, the Enterprise price, and minimum seats and term are not described, and Lucid AI is currently free but may be subject to a paid subscription model in the future — too open for a multi-year procurement budget. 7
The Skeptic
Tiers are public with their prices — "Free €0", "Individual €9 per month when billed yearly", "Team €10 / user per month when billed yearly" — the free plan's limit of 3 editable Lucidspark boards is stated, VAT exclusion is marked, and monthly or annual billing is offered. But the Enterprise tier is "Contact sales", we found no public information on how guests or viewers are counted or what single sign-on and the EU data center cost, and AI is "currently available to all users but may be subject to a paid subscription model in the future" — so the real annual cost is not computable from public pages. 5 7
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 | — | 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 Lucidspark
Is Lucidspark European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Lucidspark as Rest of world.
Where does Lucidspark store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
Does Lucidspark have a free plan?
Yes. Lucidspark has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Lucidspark?
As of 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Miro (3.5/5), Collaboard (3.5/5) and Klaxoon (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 Collaboard (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Lucidspark 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 — Data processing agreement, Legal entity, Hosting location. 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 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
- 20 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
- 2 support 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 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
- 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 (20)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage (Lucidspark) lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page (virtual whiteboarding) lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Features page (facilitating meetings) lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Integrations page (marketplace) lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Features page (enterprise) lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 API documentation lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Pricing page lucid.app Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Security / trust page lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Privacy policy lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Terms of service (legal policies) lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Canvas, templates & content — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Canvas, templates & content — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 13 Workshop facilitation & participation — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 14 Workshop facilitation & participation — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 15 Integrations, import & export — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 16 Integrations, import & export — found from sitemap lucid-developer-docs.readme.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 17 Sharing, permissions & administration — found from sitemap lucid-developer-docs.readme.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 18 Sharing, permissions & administration — found from sitemap lucid-developer-docs.readme.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 19 Security, AI controls & deployment — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 20 Security, AI controls & deployment — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →