Password Management
RoboForm for Business
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Siber Systems Inc. · www.roboform.com
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.
RoboForm for Business at a glance
- Vendor
- Siber Systems Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates RoboForm for Business 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. RoboForm for Business, from Siber Systems, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
RoboForm for Business, from Siber Systems, Inc. of Fairfax, Virginia, is strongest on claimed administrative breadth: sharing and access control and identity integration each held a flat 4, and security architecture and audit and policy ran 4 to 5, crediting named AES-256 with PBKDF2-SHA256 encryption, a zero-knowledge claim with decryption on the device, a Secfault Security test and a CISA-aligned bug bounty. The bench found no public date or published results for that test, and no statement of which fields stay unencrypted. The weak ends are flat: sovereignty scored 0, the captured pages giving a US company at 3701 Pender Dr, Suite 400, Fairfax, VA 22030 while data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure are all unknown; and pricing transparency scored 3, consumer plans priced publicly — Premium at 1,66 € /mo +VAT Billed annually — but no public price, seat minimum or term for the business tier. Deployment and portability is the only spread, 2 to 4: the rationales agree client coverage is broad and differ on how much the pages' silence on export, hosting region and self-hosting should weigh.
Speaks for it
- Encryption is named and specific — AES256 with PBKDF2 SHA256 — with decryption on the device under a stated zero-knowledge claim
- SSO integration and SCIM provisioning are listed as business features, with 2FA options spanning passkeys, trusted devices and hardware security keys
- Business features include exportable activity logs, compliance-ready reports, custom security policies and a Security Dashboard with per-employee, group and company password-health views
- Clients cover Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, iOS and Android plus the Chrome, Edge and Firefox extensions, with offline access in the universal Windows installer and a local-only mode
- Consumer pricing is public down to VAT treatment, first-year and renewal rates, with a 30-day money-back guarantee on Premium and Family
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 0: the contracting entity is Siber Systems, Inc., a US company at 3701 Pender Dr, Suite 400, Fairfax, VA 22030, and data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure are unknown
- The bench found no public price, seat minimum or minimum term for the business tier that carries the SSO, SCIM and activity logs
- The Secfault Security test is named, but the bench found no public date or published results for it, nor any statement of which fields such as URLs and metadata stay unencrypted
- No identity provider is named, and we found no public information on how the vault key is derived or released behind an SSO unlock, or on what deprovisioning revokes
- We found no public information on a documented export and import path, a hosting-region choice, a self-hosted option, or an admin account-recovery mechanism and its key model
Best for
- You need a password manager across a mixed fleet — Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, iOS and Android clients plus the Chrome, Edge and Firefox extensions — with a local-only mode on paid tiers
- You value named, specific encryption — AES256 with PBKDF2 SHA256, decryption on the device — and a passkey-based passwordless unlock, and can accept a test that is named but not published
- You want an admin center with SSO, SCIM provisioning, exportable activity logs and per-employee password health in a Security Dashboard, and are prepared to ask the vendor for the detail the pages do not show
- You are buying for yourself or a family — Premium at 1,66 € /mo +VAT Billed annually and Family at 2,66 € /mo +VAT Billed annually are public, each with a 30-day money-back guarantee
Avoid if
- Your procurement or board requires a non-US contracting entity or stated data residency — the vendor is Siber Systems, Inc. of Fairfax, Virginia, sovereignty scored 0, and data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure are unknown
- You must compute a business invoice from public prices — consumer tiers are priced but the bench found no public price, seat minimum or minimum term for the business tier
- You need a documented export and import path and a hosting-region choice before adopting — deployment and portability scores spread 2 to 4 and the rationales found no public information on either
- Your compliance file requires a published audit report with date and scope, or alignment to a named standard — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Encryption model & independent audits | 2 of 5 |
| Sharing, roles & recovery | 2 of 5 |
| SSO, directory sync & provisioning | 2 of 5 |
| Audit logs, policies & reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, offline access & export | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.5 of 5 |
Encryption model & independent audits
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the vendor can prove about its security design: end-to-end encryption with named algorithms and key derivation, which fields are encrypted on the device and which are not, independent audits and penetration tests with published results, a bug bounty, and incident history disclosed.
0 — Security described in adjectives ("bank-grade", "military encryption") with no architecture, no audit and no statement of what the vendor can read.
3 — Encryption algorithms named and "zero knowledge" claimed, but no whitepaper, no statement of which fields stay unencrypted, and audits mentioned without dates, auditors or results.
5 — A published security whitepaper naming algorithms, key derivation and the client-side encryption model, a stated list of what is and is not encrypted (including URLs and metadata), and a named independent audit or certification (ISO 27001, SOC 2) with its date.
8 — Recurring independent penetration tests or code audits with reports or summaries published, a public bug bounty or vulnerability disclosure policy, past security incidents documented with their impact, and open-source clients or cryptography that can be reviewed.
10 — The design is verifiable end to end: full source or cryptographic design public, every field encrypted client-side including metadata, audits by named firms repeated yearly with full reports, a threat model that states what a compromise of the vendor's servers would expose, and incident post-mortems published.
The CISO
AES-256 with PBKDF2-SHA256 and a zero-knowledge claim are stated, a security whitepaper is referenced, a Secfault Security assessment is named, and a bug bounty aligned to CISA standards exists. But I found no published report or date for the audit, no statement of which fields stay unencrypted, no threat model and no written incident history — so I cannot verify what the vendor can read or what a past compromise exposed. 3 5
The Identity Engineer
AES-256 with PBKDF2-SHA256 is named, decryption happens on the device with a stated "we have no way of knowing your Master Password", and a named tester (Secfault Security) plus a bug bounty are on the security page. The captured pages give no date or results for that test, no statement of which fields such as URLs or metadata stay unencrypted, and we found no public information on published audit reports, incident history, or a reviewable client. 3
The Compliance Auditor
AES-256 with PBKDF2-SHA256, a zero-knowledge claim, a named external tester (Secfault Security), a bug bounty aligned to CISA standards and a whitepaper described as detailing the architecture are all on the security page. The captured pages give no date or published result for that audit, no statement of which fields such as URLs and metadata remain unencrypted, and no incident history, so the evidence sits between a bare algorithm statement and a fully documented model. 3
The SME Owner
The security page names AES-256 with PBKDF2-SHA256, states that all decryption happens on the device and that the vendor has no way to know the master password, points to a security whitepaper, and shows both a bug bounty under CISA standards and a named auditor, Secfault Security. What holds it back is that the captured pages give no date or published results for that audit, and no statement of which fields or metadata stay unencrypted. 3
The DevOps Engineer
The security page names AES256 with PBKDF2 SHA256, claims zero-knowledge with all decryption on my device, and points to a whitepaper and a Secfault Security test; I found no public information on the audit's date or results, on which fields such as URLs and metadata stay unencrypted, or on open-source code I could review myself. Named algorithms and a named auditor, with nothing verifiable behind them. 3
The Skeptic
AES-256 with PBKDF2-SHA256 is named, decryption on the device is stated, and a security whitepaper, a Secfault Security test and a bug bounty aligned to CISA standards are all cited. But we found no public information on an audit date, published results or scope, on which fields stay unencrypted, or on any incident history — a named auditor without a report is a claim, not evidence. 3
Sharing, roles & recovery
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How credentials are shared and governed across a company: shared vaults or collections, role-based permissions, view-only and time-limited access, admin account recovery, emergency access, and what happens to shared items when an employee leaves.
0 — Personal vaults only, or sharing by sending a password to another user with no permissions and no record.
3 — Shared folders with all-or-nothing access, no roles, and no stated process for recovering an account or reclaiming credentials from a departing employee.
5 — Shared vaults or collections with read, edit and manage permissions, groups and admin roles, an admin recovery mechanism documented with its key model, and offboarding that transfers a leaver's shared items.
8 — Granular permissions down to hiding the password while allowing autofill, time-limited and one-time sharing with external parties, emergency access with a waiting period, delegated administration per team or location, and approval workflows for sensitive items.
10 — Access is governed and provable: least-privilege defaults, recovery and emergency access designed so the vendor never holds a key and stated so, periodic access reviews supported in the product, and every grant, change and revocation attributable to a person.
The CISO
Role-based access control, granular sharing permissions, an admin center and emergency access are claimed, and single files or folders can be shared. I found no public information on permission levels such as view-only or time-limited sharing, on the admin account recovery mechanism and its key model, or on what happens to a leaver's shared items. 1 3
The Identity Engineer
Business lists shared folders, role-based access control and "granular sharing permissions" across multiple sharing tiers, and emergency access for trusted contacts exists for paid tiers. We found no public information on an admin account-recovery mechanism and its key model, on what happens to a departing employee's shared items, or on view-only or time-limited grants — the offboarding path matters to me most and it is not described. 1 3
The Compliance Auditor
Granular sharing permissions, multiple sharing tiers, role-based access control, secure sharing of single files or folders and emergency access are all stated for the business product. We found no public information on an admin recovery mechanism and its key model, on view-only or time-limited sharing, or on what happens to a leaver's shared items — exactly what an offboarding file has to show. 1 3
The SME Owner
Granular sharing permissions with multiple sharing tiers, role-based access control, folder and file sharing, and emergency access for trusted contacts are all listed for the business tier, which is well past an all-or-nothing shared folder. But for my forty people the two things I need most — an admin recovery path when someone forgets the master password, and how a leaver's shared credentials are reclaimed — I found no public information on, nor on view-only or time-limited sharing. 1 3
The DevOps Engineer
Granular sharing permissions, multiple sharing tiers, role-based access control and emergency access for trusted contacts are all claimed, but only as one-line marketing copy. I found no public information on an admin recovery mechanism and its key model, on transferring a departing employee's shared items, or on hiding a password while still allowing autofill. 3 1
The Skeptic
Role-based access control, granular sharing tiers, sharing of single files or folders, an admin center and emergency access for trusted contacts are all listed, which clears the basic bar. We found no public information on an admin account recovery mechanism and its key model, on what happens to a leaver's shared items, on view-only or time-limited sharing, or on a waiting period for emergency access. 1 3
SSO, directory sync & provisioning
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the vault fits into the company's identity stack: SSO with Entra ID, Okta or Google, and the key model behind an SSO unlock; SCIM or directory sync for joiners and leavers; MFA options including hardware keys; and passkey support for users and the vault itself.
0 — Each user creates an account by email; no SSO, no directory sync and no MFA beyond an app code.
3 — SSO available only to sign in to the admin console or on the top tier with no description of how the vault is then decrypted, and users provisioned by CSV invite.
5 — SSO with named identity providers (Entra ID, Okta, Google) documented with how the vault key is derived or released, SCIM or directory sync for provisioning and deprovisioning, and MFA including FIDO2 or hardware keys.
8 — SSO unlock designed so the vendor cannot derive the vault key and stated so, group sync driving vault permissions, automated suspension on deprovisioning, conditional access or device policies, and passkeys stored and used across platforms.
10 — Identity is integrated without trust shortcuts: the SSO key model published and independently reviewed, deprovisioning that revokes vault access and shared items immediately with a log entry, passwordless vault unlock with passkeys, and support for the customer's own key-management or trusted-device approval.
The CISO
SSO and SCIM provisioning are listed business features, 2FA spans passkeys, trusted devices, hardware security keys, email, SMS and authenticator apps, and passwordless passkey unlock is documented. However the identity providers are unnamed, and I found no public information on how the vault key is derived or released after an SSO sign-in — the first question I would put to this vendor. 1 3
The Identity Engineer
SSO integration and SCIM provisioning are both listed as Business features, and 2FA spans hardware security keys and passkeys, with passwordless vault unlock via a passkey verified by face, fingerprint or device PIN — that unlock story is genuinely good. No identity provider is named anywhere, we found no public information on how the vault key is derived or released under SSO, and nothing states that a deprovisioned account is suspended immediately. 1 3
The Compliance Auditor
SSO integration and SCIM provisioning are listed among the business features, and MFA spans passkeys, trusted devices, hardware security keys, email, SMS and authenticator apps, with passwordless unlock via passkey. We found no public information naming identity providers such as Entra ID, Okta or Google, on how the vault key is derived or released under SSO, or on what deprovisioning actually revokes. 1 3
The SME Owner
SSO integration and SCIM provisioning appear in the business feature list, and the 2FA story is genuinely strong with passkeys, trusted devices and hardware security keys alongside email, SMS and authenticator apps, plus passwordless unlock. But I found no named identity providers such as Entra ID, Okta or Google, no description of how the vault key is derived or released when someone signs in through SSO, and no public information on what happens to vault access when a user is deprovisioned. 1 3
The DevOps Engineer
SSO and SCIM provisioning are listed as business features, and 2FA spans passkeys, trusted devices and hardware security keys — but no identity provider is named, and I found no public information on how the vault key is derived or released behind an SSO unlock or what deprovisioning actually revokes. 1 3
The Skeptic
Single sign-on and SCIM provisioning are both claimed for the business tier, alongside hardware security keys, passkeys, passwordless unlock and a full menu of second factors. But we found no public information naming the identity providers or describing how the vault key is derived or released under single sign-on — with zero-knowledge claimed, that unexplained key handoff is the part that matters. 1 3
Audit logs, policies & reporting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What an administrator and an auditor can see and enforce: event logs of access and changes, password health and breach reports, enforceable policies (master password, MFA, sharing, export), SIEM integration, and reports an ISO 27001 or NIS2 audit can use.
0 — No audit log and no admin policies; the administrator sees a user list.
3 — A basic activity list and a password-strength score, but no exportable log, no enforceable policies, and no record of who viewed or copied a shared credential.
5 — Event logs covering logins, item access, sharing and admin changes, exportable or available through an API, enforceable policies for master password and MFA, and password health and breach-monitoring reports.
8 — Native SIEM integration with named targets (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic or syslog), policies for sharing, export and browser-extension behaviour, log retention stated, and compliance reports aligned to ISO 27001, NIS2 or BSI IT-Grundschutz.
10 — Auditability is complete: every view, copy, autofill and permission change logged with user and device, logs tamper-evident and retained for a configurable period, alerting on anomalous access, and an auditor role that can read logs without access to secrets.
The CISO
Exportable activity logs, compliance-ready reports, custom security policies and a security dashboard with per-employee password health and breach scanning are claimed. I found no public information on which events the logs capture, which policies are enforceable, log retention, SIEM targets, or alignment to ISO 27001 or NIS2. 1 3
The Identity Engineer
"Comprehensive, exportable activity logs and compliance-ready reports", a Security Dashboard with per-employee password-health insights, breach monitoring and "custom security policies" in the admin center are all claimed. The captured pages don't say which events the log records or which policies can actually be enforced, and we found no public information on SIEM integration or log retention — thin for an ISO 27001 audit file. 1 3
The Compliance Auditor
Exportable activity logs, compliance-ready reports, custom security policies and a security dashboard with per-employee, group and company views, a compromised-password scanner and breach monitoring are claimed. We found no public information on which events the logs record — specifically views and copies of a shared credential — nor on log retention or SIEM integration with named targets, and the compliance reports are named to no standard such as ISO 27001 or NIS2. 1 3
The SME Owner
Exportable activity logs, compliance-ready reports, a Security Dashboard with password health per employee, group and company, continuous breach monitoring, and custom security policies in an admin center cover most of what I would ask an administrator for. The pages do not show which events the logs record, what the policies can actually enforce, or any SIEM integration or log retention statement. 1 3
The DevOps Engineer
Exportable activity logs, compliance-ready reports, custom security policies and a Security Dashboard with a compromised-password scanner and continuous breach monitoring are all evidenced. I found no public information on which events the logs actually cover, on SIEM integration or on log retention, so this stops short of anything I could hand an auditor with confidence. 3 1
The Skeptic
Exportable activity logs, compliance-ready reports, custom security policies and a Security Dashboard with per-employee, group and company password health plus breach monitoring are all evidenced. We found no public information on which events the logs record, on named log retention, on SIEM integration, or on alignment to any framework like ISO 27001 or NIS2 — compliance-ready with no framework named is an adjective, not an audit trail. 1 3
Hosting choice, offline access & export
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where and how the vault runs and how the data leaves it: cloud region choice, a self-hosted or on-premises option, offline access during a vendor outage, client coverage across operating systems and browsers, and a complete, documented export and import path.
0 — Cloud only in an unstated region, no offline access, and no export or an export that drops attachments and shared items.
3 — Cloud with a region named, apps for common platforms, and an export in CSV only that leaves out attachments, folders, TOTP seeds or custom fields.
5 — An EU region or self-hosted option, offline read access on desktop and mobile, clients for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and the major browsers, and an export that covers all item types including attachments.
8 — Both EU cloud and self-hosted or on-premises deployment documented, a status page with incident history, encrypted full-fidelity export and import from named competitors, and vault access continuing during an outage of the vendor's service.
10 — The customer can run and leave the vault on their own terms: self-hosting with documented high availability and backup, an open or documented export format that preserves structure, permissions and history, and a stated procedure for continued access if the vendor ends the service.
The CISO
Clients cover Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, iOS, Android and the Chrome, Edge and Firefox browsers, offline access is documented for the Windows installer, and a local-only mode is offered. I found no public information on hosting region choice, a self-hosted option, a status page with incident history, or any documented export and import path. 1 4 5
The Identity Engineer
Client coverage is broad — Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Chrome OS and the four major browsers — and the Windows installer offers offline access, with a "local only mode" on paid tiers. We found no public information on an EU region or self-hosted option, a status page with incident history, or any documented export format and what it covers, which is the portability half of this question. 1 4 5
The Compliance Auditor
Clients cover Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, iOS, Android and the Chrome, Edge and Firefox extensions, and the universal Windows installer offers offline access, with a local-only mode listed on every paid tier. We found no public information on a cloud region choice or EU hosting, on a self-hosted option, or on any documented export and import path, so a buyer can neither see where the data lives nor how it leaves. 1 4 5
The SME Owner
Client coverage is excellent — Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, iOS, Android and extensions for Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Brave and Opera — with offline access documented for the universal Windows installer and a local-only mode advertised. But I found no public information on where the cloud data sits, no self-hosted option mentioned, and no documented export or import path at all. 1 4 5
The DevOps Engineer
Client coverage is genuinely broad — Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android, Chrome OS plus the Chrome, Edge and Firefox extensions — with offline access in the Windows installer and a local-only mode. But I found no public information on a self-hosted deployment, a cloud region choice, or a documented export and import path, and those are exactly what I need before this touches my data centre. 4 5 1
The Skeptic
Clients cover Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, iOS, Android and the major browsers, the universal Windows installer documents offline access, and a local-only mode is offered. We found no public information on a hosting region, a self-hosted or on-premises option, a status page with incident history, or any documented export and import path — the client story is broad, the story of how your data leaves is absent. 1 4 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where vault data and metadata are hosted, and who the subprocessors are. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; end-to-end encryption narrows what a foreign authority could compel, but metadata, logs and the update channel for the client software remain in the vendor's hands, so the chain still counts.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU data region offered while the contracting entity and parent are non-EU without a stated safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard or selectable and an EU contracting entity, but the parent company or parts of the chain (support, analytics, email, client distribution) are non-EU.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations, a DPA covering vault metadata and logs, and a self-hosted option that removes the vendor from the data path.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, certifications published (ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent), and source code or builds verifiable so the client update channel is not a blind trust in the vendor.
The CISO
The contracting entity is Siber Systems, Inc. of Fairfax, Virginia — a US company — and I found no public information on where vault data or metadata are hosted, on ownership, or on a single subprocessor. A foreign authority can compel what a US vendor holds, and with no published chain to review I have nothing to put before my board. 3 5
The Identity Engineer
The contracting entity is Siber Systems, Inc. with a Fairfax, Virginia address — a US company — and we found no public information on where vault data and metadata are hosted, on the subprocessor list, or on any EU contracting or hosting option. For my chain-of-custody view, end-to-end encryption narrows what could be compelled but the update channel and any metadata remain with a non-EU vendor as far as the captured pages show. 3
The Compliance Auditor
The contracting entity is Siber Systems, Inc. of Fairfax, Virginia — a US company. We found no public information on where vault data and metadata are hosted, on the parent or ownership, or on any subprocessor, and a US entity with hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed is the situation the lowest description defines. 3
The SME Owner
The contracting entity is Siber Systems, Inc. at 3701 Pender Dr, Fairfax, Virginia — a US company — and the captured pages state no data residency, offer no EU region, name no subprocessors and publish no DPA details. For a European buyer, every link in the chain is left unaddressed on these pages. 3
The DevOps Engineer
The contracting entity is Siber Systems, Inc. in the USA at a Fairfax, Virginia address, and I found no public information on data residency, ownership or any subprocessor list. A US vendor with every other link in the chain unevidenced sits at the bottom of my scale. 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Siber Systems, Inc. with an address in Fairfax, Virginia, and we found no public information on where vault data or metadata are hosted or on any subprocessor, including in the captured privacy policy. A US parent, unstated hosting and no subprocessor list is precisely the picture the bottom of this scale describes, and end-to-end encryption cannot carry the chain when the metadata, logs and client update channel remain with that parent. 2 3
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, which features (SSO, SCIM, SIEM, self-hosting) sit in which tier, minimum seats, add-ons, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but which business features (SSO, SCIM, audit logs) sit in which tier is unclear — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Per-user tier prices public with the main features per tier, but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, SIEM integration, self-hosting, minimum seats) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its feature set and seat minimum, add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of users, with every add-on, self-hosting licence, support level and renewal condition published.
The CISO
Consumer tiers are priced publicly — Premium at '1,66 € /mo +VAT Billed annually', '19,90 € for the first year' then '29,88 €/yr', Family at '2,66 € /mo', '31,95 €' then '47,75 €/yr', each with a 30-day money-back guarantee. For the Business tier, where SSO, SCIM and the audit reports sit, we found no public price, seat minimum or minimum term, so a business buyer cannot compute their annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Identity Engineer
Free, Premium and Family prices are published down to VAT treatment, first-year and renewal rates, but the Business tier appears only as a feature list — SSO, SCIM, activity logs — with no price attached. We found no public information on Business per-user pricing, seat minimums, add-ons or minimum term, so a company's real annual invoice is not computable from the public pages. 1
The Compliance Auditor
Consumer prices are public: Premium at 1,66 €/mo plus VAT billed annually (2,49 € regular), first year 19,90 € renewing at 29,88 €/yr, and Family at 2,66 €/mo plus VAT (3,98 € regular), first year 31,95 € renewing at 47,75 €/yr, plus a free single-device tier and 30-day money-back guarantees. The business product — where SSO, SCIM, activity logs and custom security policies sit — carries no public price, seat minimum or term on the captured pages, so the business invoice is not computable. 1
The SME Owner
Consumer prices are fully public — "1,66 € /mo +VAT Billed annually" for Premium and "2,66 € /mo +VAT Billed annually" for Family, with first-year and renewal prices and a 30-day money-back guarantee — but I found no public price for the business tier. For my forty seats I cannot tell from these pages what per-user business pricing is or what SSO and SCIM would cost, so the invoice is unknowable. 1
The DevOps Engineer
Free, Premium and Family are priced publicly with VAT treatment, first-year and renewal rates and a 30-day money-back guarantee, but I found no public information on the price, seat minimum or term of the business tier that carries the SSO, SCIM and audit logs. As the buyer of the business product, my invoice is not computable from the captured pages. 1
The Skeptic
Premium and Family are priced to the cent with first-year and renewal figures, VAT treatment stated as excluded, annual billing and a 30-day money-back guarantee — but those are consumer plans. The Business tier's features are itemised while we found no public information on business per-user pricing, seat minimums or minimum term, so a company cannot compute its invoice from public pages. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about RoboForm for Business
Is RoboForm for Business European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where RoboForm for Business is based.
Where does RoboForm for Business store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does RoboForm for Business have a free plan?
Yes. RoboForm for Business has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to RoboForm for Business?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Password Depot (3.5/5), Keeper (3/5) and Passbolt (3/5) highest among the other 18 Password Management 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 Password Depot (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: RoboForm for Business alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 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 residency, Subprocessors, Legal entity. 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.
- 7 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
- 6 data 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
- 5 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
- 4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations 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
Sources (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.roboform.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.roboform.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Encryption model & independent audits — found from sitemap www.roboform.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Hosting choice, offline access & export — found from sitemap www.roboform.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Hosting choice, offline access & export — found from sitemap www.roboform.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →