Password Management
Zoho Vault
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Zoho Corporation · www.zoho.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.
Zoho Vault at a glance
- Vendor
- Zoho Corporation
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Zoho Vault 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Zoho Vault is a cloud password manager from Zoho Corporation; its German pages state that data is stored in a datacenter within the EU. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Zoho Vault is a cloud password manager from Zoho Corporation; its German pages state that data is stored in a datacenter within the EU. The highest scores on the card sit in identity integration, ranging from 4 to 6: higher scores credit Active Directory and LDAP sync with configurable intervals, SAML single sign-on, Okta, Azure and Google Workspace user sync, and YubiKey hardware-key MFA, while lower scores hold back because not one captured page explains how the vault key is derived or released through single sign-on. Security architecture scores cluster at 3-4, and sharing and access control, audit and policy, and deployment and portability at 4, where we found no public information on an encryption whitepaper, dated audits, admin recovery or a documented export format. Sovereignty scores cluster at 3: the parent sits in Chennai, contracting entity jurisdiction and subprocessor exposure are unknown, and the terms permit datacenter migration. Pricing transparency carries the lowest score on the card, 2-3: the captured pricing page lists what each edition contains yet shows no price figure.
Speaks for it
- Active Directory and LDAP sync with configurable intervals, SAML single sign-on, Okta, Azure and Google Workspace user sync, and YubiKey hardware-key MFA are all stated on the captured pages
- A bug bounty with a public reporting address, plus automated and manual penetration tests, are described on the security pages
- Audit logging of user update and delete actions is offered in every Zoho service, with SIEM integration and folder activity reports on the paid editions
- The free edition includes unlimited passwords, notes and devices, offline access, audit trails and a security dashboard
- The German pages state EU datacenter storage, and free migration and onboarding support is offered
Held against it
- We found no public information on key derivation, on which fields stay unencrypted, or on a named independent audit with its date
- We found no public information on an admin recovery mechanism and its key model, or on what happens to a leaver's shared items
- We found no public information on how the vault key is released under single sign-on or on automatic suspension of a deprovisioned user
- Contracting entity jurisdiction, ownership and subprocessor exposure are unknown on the captured pages, and the terms state Zoho may migrate the datacenter
- The captured pricing page shows no price figure, seat minimum or minimum term, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from public information
Best for
- You run Active Directory or LDAP and want user and password provisioning with configurable sync intervals into a shared vault
- You want a no-cost start where the free edition already includes audit trails, a security dashboard, offline access and unlimited passwords and devices
- You already use Okta, Azure or Google Workspace and want single sign-on plus user sync
- Your team shares credentials through user groups and folders and needs granular sharing with an access-control workflow
Avoid if
- You must compute an annual invoice from public information before purchase — the captured pricing page shows no price figure
- You need your data location fixed — the terms assign the datacenter at signup and state that Zoho may migrate it
- Your procurement must pin down the contracting chain — the parent is Zoho Corporation in Chennai, and contracting entity jurisdiction, ownership and subprocessor exposure are unknown on the captured pages
- Your audit requires logged evidence of who viewed or copied a shared credential — the documented logging covers user update and delete operations
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Encryption model & independent audits | 2 of 5 |
| Sharing, roles & recovery | 2 of 5 |
| SSO, directory sync & provisioning | 2.5 of 5 |
| Audit logs, policies & reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, offline access & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 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 and a zero-knowledge claim are named, a bug bounty with a public reporting address exists, and penetration testing is described as automated and manual — but we found no public information on a whitepaper naming key derivation or stating which fields are encrypted and which are not, no auditor names, dates or published results for those tests, and no incident history. 1 6
The Identity Engineer
AES-256 and a zero-knowledge claim are published, and there is a bug bounty with a reporting address plus a described programme of automated and manual penetration tests. We found no public information on key derivation, on which fields remain unencrypted, or on any named independent audit with its date, so the encryption story rests on assertion. 1 6
The Compliance Auditor
The captured pages name AES-256 with SSL/TLS transport, claim a zero-knowledge architecture, and a security page documents vulnerability management with automated and manual penetration tests plus a bug-bounty programme with its reporting address. Beyond that we found no public information on key derivation, on which fields stay unencrypted, or on any audit or certification report with a named auditor and date — nothing here could yet be filed as ISO 27001 evidence. 1 6
The SME Owner
AES-256, SSL/TLS and a zero-knowledge claim are published, and the security page describes penetration testing plus a bug bounty program with a reporting address. But we found no public whitepaper naming key derivation or stating which fields stay unencrypted, and no audit with a named firm, date or published results. 1 6
The DevOps Engineer
AES-256, SSL/TLS transport and a zero-knowledge claim are named, and the security pages describe a bug bounty programme plus vulnerability management with automated and manual penetration tests. I found no whitepaper naming key derivation, no statement of which fields such as URLs or metadata stay unencrypted, and no dated audits, named auditors or published results on the captured pages. 1 6 7
The Skeptic
The homepage claims AES-256 and zero-knowledge in a single sentence, with no whitepaper, no statement of which fields stay unencrypted, and no word on what Zoho itself can read. Penetration tests are mentioned without auditors, dates or published reports, and we found no public information on any security incident history. A bug bounty with a public reporting address is the one verifiable commitment here. 1 6
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
Folder sharing, user groups, granular password sharing with an access-control workflow, a Break Glass account and designated administrators are advertised; we found no public information enumerating read, edit and manage permissions, the key model behind account recovery, or what happens to a departing employee's shared credentials. 1 2 5
The Identity Engineer
User groups, folder sharing, granular password sharing with an access-control workflow, a Break Glass account and folder activity reports are documented across editions. We found no public information on an admin recovery mechanism and its key model, or on what happens to a leaver's shared items — the offboarding question I have to answer for two thousand staff goes unanswered on the captured pages. 1 2 5
The Compliance Auditor
The vendor advertises granular password sharing with an access-control workflow, user groups, folder sharing and a Break Glass account, and enterprise accounts can designate administrators. We found no public information on read-versus-edit permission granularity, on an administrator recovery mechanism documented with its key model, or on how a leaver's shared items are transferred — all of which an auditor needs in writing. 1 2 5
The SME Owner
Granular password sharing with an access-control workflow, user groups, folder sharing and a Break Glass account are listed, which covers the day-to-day sharing my team needs. What I could not find is any public information on an admin recovery path for a forgotten master password or on how a leaver's shared items are reclaimed. 1 2 5
The DevOps Engineer
User groups, folder sharing, granular password sharing with an access-control workflow and designated corporate administrators are documented, which is more than all-or-nothing folders. I found no public information on admin account recovery and its key model, emergency access, or what happens to a leaver's shared items, so I stop short of calling sharing governed. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Granular sharing, user groups, folder sharing and a Break Glass account appear as feature-list phrases, but we found no public information on a permissions model, an admin recovery mechanism and its key model, or what happens to a leaver's shared items. A Break Glass account is the only emergency-style access named, and nothing says who holds its key. 1 2 5
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
SAML single sign-on is documented with named integrations — Active Directory and LDAP sync with real-time and scheduled provisioning, plus Okta, OneLogin, Azure and Google Workspace user sync — and MFA spans YubiKey hardware keys and biometrics; we found no public information on how the vault key is derived or released through single sign-on, or on automatic suspension when a user is deprovisioned. 2 6 8 9
The Identity Engineer
SAML single sign-on, Active Directory and LDAP synchronisation with configurable intervals, Azure, Google Workspace and Okta user sync, YubiKey hardware keys and passwordless vault unlock are all evidenced. What I cannot find is the key model behind an SSO unlock, any SCIM provisioning, or any statement that disabling a directory account suspends the vault — joiners are covered, leavers are silent. 1 2 6 8 9
The Compliance Auditor
Directory integration is well evidenced: Active Directory and LDAP sync with configurable or real-time intervals, user and password provisioning through Zoho Directory, SAML-based SSO, Okta and OneLogin integration, Azure or Google Workspace user sync, and MFA spanning biometrics, push, TOTP and YubiKey hardware keys. We found no public information on how the vault key is derived or released under SSO, on automated suspension when an account is deprovisioned, or on group sync driving vault permissions. 2 6 8 9
The SME Owner
SAML single sign-on, Active Directory and Azure or Google Workspace sync, Okta integration, configurable directory sync intervals and YubiKey hardware-key MFA are all documented. We found no public information on how the vault key is derived or released under single sign-on, or on automatic suspension of vault access when a user is deprovisioned. 2 6 8 9
The DevOps Engineer
SAML SSO with named providers, Active Directory and LDAP sync with user provisioning and password sync at a configurable interval, YubiKey hardware keys, passwordless unlock and passkey storage for the developer segment are all evidenced. What holds me back is the key model: no captured page states how the vault is decrypted under SSO or that the vendor cannot derive the key, and I found no evidence of automated suspension when a directory user is deprovisioned. 1 2 6 8 9
The Skeptic
Directory integration is the strongest part of this file: Active Directory and LDAP sync with configurable intervals, password sync, Azure, Google Workspace and Okta user sync, SAML single sign-on, and YubiKey hardware-key MFA are all stated. But not one captured page explains how the vault key is derived or released when a user signs in through single sign-on — exactly where zero-knowledge claims usually break — and we found no public information on automated suspension when someone is deprovisioned. 2 6 8 9
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
Detailed audit logging of every user update and deletion is offered in each service, with folder activity reports, unauthorized-access alerts, geolocation restriction and a SIEM integration listed at the top edition; we found no public information on exportable logs or an API for them, enforceable master-password or MFA policies, named SIEM targets, or stated log retention. 2 6
The Identity Engineer
Detailed audit logging of user update and delete actions, folder activity reports, unauthorized-access alerts, a security dashboard and an SIEM integration are published, with webhooks and a CLI to move events out. We found no public information on enforceable master password or MFA policies, on log retention, or on named SIEM targets and ISO 27001 or NIS2-aligned reporting. 1 2 6
The Compliance Auditor
Detailed audit logging is documented covering updates and deletions in every Zoho service, alongside unauthorized-access alerts, folder activity reports, a report scheduler and SIEM integration named as an enterprise feature. The captured pages give no evidence that views or copies of a shared credential are logged, name no SIEM targets, and we found no public information on enforceable master-password or export policies, log retention, or compliance reports aligned to ISO 27001 or NIS2. 1 2 6
The SME Owner
Audit trails covering user updates and deletions, folder activity reports, unauthorized-access alerts and a security dashboard are published, and a SIEM integration is listed on the enterprise edition without named targets. We found no public information on exportable logs or an API for them, on enforceable master-password or MFA policies, or on log retention. 1 2 6
The DevOps Engineer
Detailed audit logging covering user updates and deletions is offered in every service, SIEM integration, unauthorized-access alerts and folder activity reports appear in the edition lists, and the free tier already includes audit trails and a security dashboard. I found no public information on enforceable master-password or MFA policies, on log export or retention, or on compliance reporting aligned to ISO 27001 or NIS2. 1 2 6 10
The Skeptic
The product sells audit trails as a slogan, while the security page describes logging that covers update and delete operations only — nothing about who viewed or copied a shared credential. SIEM integration and folder activity reports exist on the paid editions, but we found no public information on exportable logs, log retention, enforceable master-password or MFA policies, or compliance certifications. 1 2 6
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
An EU datacenter is stated, offline access, a security dashboard with backup, iOS and Android apps and browser extensions for the major browsers are listed; we found no public information on desktop clients for Windows, macOS or Linux, a self-hosted option, a status page, or a documented export format — the privacy policy offers only to export or delete data on request. 1 2 3 5
The Identity Engineer
An EU datacentre is stated, offline access is listed as a product feature, iOS and Android apps plus extensions for the major browsers are published, and free migration support is offered. We found no public information on a self-hosted option, desktop apps for Windows, macOS and Linux, a status page with incident history, or an in-product export and its fidelity — only an export on request under the privacy policy. 1 2 5 6
The Compliance Auditor
The German product pages state that data is stored in an EU datacenter, offline access and apps for iOS and Android plus browser extensions for six browsers are listed, and customers can request an export of their data. We found no public information on desktop clients for Windows, macOS or Linux, on a self-hosted option, or on a documented export format covering attachments and shared items; the terms also state the datacenter location is assigned at signup and that Zoho may migrate it. 1 2 3 5
The SME Owner
An EU datacenter, offline access, iOS and Android apps and browser extensions for Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Brave and Vivaldi are published, along with free migration support. We found no public information on desktop clients for Windows, macOS or Linux, on a self-hosted option, or on what a complete export includes. 1 2 5
The DevOps Engineer
An EU datacentre, offline access, iOS and Android apps, seven browser extensions and a CLI in the professional edition are documented, with free migration and onboarding support. I found no self-hosted or on-premises option on the captured pages, no desktop clients named, no status page, and no documented export format — the only export mentioned is on request under the privacy policy — so a clean exit stays unproven. 1 2 3 5
The Skeptic
An EU datacenter is promised on the German site and offline mode plus iOS, Android and six browsers are listed, but we found no public information on desktop clients or a self-hosted option. Export appears only as a right to request one alongside deletion, with no format, fidelity or attachments mentioned, and the terms leave datacenter assignment and migration to Zoho. There is also no status page or incident history to check. 1 2 3 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 parent is Zoho Corporation in Chennai, India, while an EU datacenter is stated and region assignment is fixed at signup with migration at the vendor's discretion; we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction or ownership as captured, or on a subprocessor list with locations — and push notifications are routed through Apple, Google and Microsoft services. 1 3 5
The Identity Engineer
The Vault pages state data is stored in an EU datacentre and the German legal notice names Zoho Corporation GmbH as service provider, but the parent company is in India and the captured pages state no safeguard for that chain. The contracting entity, ownership and subprocessors are not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and we found no published subprocessor list with locations — the privacy policy incidentally names Apple, Google and Microsoft push services. 1 3 4
The Compliance Auditor
The group is headquartered in Chennai with a German imprint naming a German service provider, and the product pages state EU datacenter storage with in-house analytics tools and third-party tracking cookies disabled. However, the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction or ownership structure, and we found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations or a DPA covering metadata and logs; the only named third parties are push-notification providers, and the terms permit datacenter migration. 1 3 5 7
The SME Owner
The German pages state data is stored in a datacenter within the EU, but the parent company sits in India, and the privacy policy only names push-notification providers as outside services. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, or a published subprocessor list with locations, so the chain remains opaque. 1 3
The DevOps Engineer
The German homepage states that data is stored in an EU datacentre, but the parent is Zoho Corporation in Chennai, India, and the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction or publish a subprocessor list with locations. Push notifications run through Apple, Google and Windows services, federated sign-in runs through LinkedIn, Microsoft and Google, and with no self-hosted option the vendor remains in the data path. 1 3 5
The Skeptic
The German imprint names a German entity and the German site promises an EU datacenter, but the parent sits in Chennai and the terms leave region assignment and migration in Zoho's hands. We found no public information on a subprocessor list or ownership structure, and push notifications ride through Apple, Google and Microsoft channels. 1 3 5
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
Editions with their feature sets and support levels are laid out on the pricing page and as a downloadable comparison, but we found no public information on any price figure — no per-user rate, minimum seats, add-on price or minimum term appears on the captured pages, so an annual cost cannot be computed. 2
The Identity Engineer
Edition feature sets, support tiers and a downloadable comparison are public, which gives a buyer the tier structure. But we found no price figures at all in the captured pages — no per-user price, seat minimum, minimum term or VAT treatment — so the real annual cost is not computable from public information. 2
The Compliance Auditor
The captured pricing page lays out a free, a professional and an enterprise edition with their feature sets, names the support tiers, and offers a comparison PDF for download. The captured pages show no price figure at all, and we found no public information on per-user prices, seat minimums, contract term or VAT treatment, so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from what was captured. 2
The SME Owner
The pricing page shows the free, professional and enterprise feature sets and offers a downloadable edition comparison, so I can see that single sign-on features sit in the enterprise edition. But we found no public price figures per user or per tier, so I cannot compute what forty people would actually cost me. 1 2
The DevOps Engineer
The pricing page lays out which features belong to the free, professional and enterprise editions, offers a comparison PDF and shows support channels per tier. I found no price figures at all on the captured page — no per-user prices, seat minimums, add-on licences, minimum term or VAT treatment — so an annual invoice cannot be computed from public information. 2
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page itemizes professional and enterprise feature lists and names basic, standard and priority support, but we found no public per-user price, seat minimum, term length or VAT treatment anywhere. A buyer can read what each edition contains yet cannot compute any invoice, and only the free tier's contents are concretely described. 1 2
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Zoho Vault
Is Zoho Vault European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Zoho Vault as Rest of world.
Where does Zoho Vault store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Zoho Vault have a free plan?
Yes. Zoho Vault has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Zoho Vault?
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: Zoho Vault alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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 — Legal entity, Data residency. 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.
- 16 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
- 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 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
- 6 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 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
- 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
- 2 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 (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Encryption model & independent audits — found from sitemap www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Encryption model & independent audits — found from sitemap www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 SSO, directory sync & provisioning — found from sitemap www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 SSO, directory sync & provisioning — found from sitemap www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit logs, policies & reporting — found from sitemap www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Audit logs, policies & reporting — found from sitemap www.zoho.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →