Sales Enablement
Modjo
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Modjo SAS · www.modjo.ai
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.
Modjo at a glance
- Vendor
- Modjo SAS
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention France and Europe source, captured 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Modjo 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Modjo, a European sales enablement platform whose AI agents capture and analyze sales conversations, scores strongest on coaching and readiness at 6-7. 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
Modjo, a European sales enablement platform whose AI agents capture and analyze sales conversations, scores strongest on coaching and readiness at 6-7. Judges credit consent engineered rather than assumed — a consent page before video meetings, a decline stops the recording, decisions logged and exportable as CSV — and AI call scoring attributed to the call, not the employee, visible by default to participants plus managers. CRM and integrations lands at 6-7: embedded in Salesforce and HubSpot, automatic updates to any native or custom object or field, SCIM 2.0 provisioning. The genuine split is buyer engagement, 0-3: one judge credited the consent page on the calls, while the others found no digital sales room, mutual action plan or trackable buyer link to assess. Content management scores 2-3 — a directory of best calls, not governed collateral. Sovereignty scores 6-7 on a French contracting entity, RINGO trading as Modjo, AWS hosting in France and AI-processed data hosted exclusively within the EU, though recorded sovereignty attributes mark data residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed. A Pricing page appears in navigation; no figures are captured.
Speaks for it
- Recording consent is engineered rather than assumed: a consent page before each video meeting, a decline stops the recording and notifies the host, and decisions are logged and exportable as CSV.
- AI call scoring is documented as attributed to the call and not the employee, an objective check of predefined playbook elements, with default visibility to call participants plus managers and restrictable.
- Modjo embeds in Salesforce and HubSpot and automatically updates any native or custom object or field.
- SCIM 2.0 provisioning is documented with named identity providers including Okta and Azure AD (Entra ID), alongside APIs, webhooks and MCP.
- The data processing agreement names a French contracting entity with AWS hosting in France and AI-processed data hosted exclusively within the European Union, alongside SOC 2 Type II.
Held against it
- The library is a directory of best sales calls rather than governed collateral, and we found no public information on versioning, approval before publishing or expiry of outdated material.
- Buyer engagement scores split from 0 to 3, and we found no public information on digital sales rooms, mutual action plans or trackable buyer-facing links.
- We found no public information on Microsoft Dynamics, Microsoft Teams or SAML single sign-on.
- We found no public information on switching AI features off per account or on excluding customer data from model training.
- The documented exit covers recordings returned in raw file format within thirty days, and we found no public information on bulk export of the content library.
Best for
- You coach a sales team through call reviews and a curated library of best calls, and need consent handling you can defend to a works council.
- You run Salesforce or HubSpot and want summaries written automatically to any native or custom object or field.
- You must document AI monitoring for employee representatives, with the score attributed to the call and AI-processed data hosted exclusively within the EU.
- You onboard new hires and want library access available a week before their official start date.
Avoid if
- You need a governed collateral library with versioning, approval steps and expiry of decks and one-pagers — the documented library holds call recordings.
- Your deals depend on buyer-facing shared spaces — the published module list contains no digital sales room, mutual action plan or trackable link.
- You need a documented bulk exit for the content library and analytics — the captured terms cover recordings returned in raw file format within thirty days.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Sales content management | 1 of 5 |
| Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms | 0 of 5 |
| Onboarding, training & coaching | 3.5 of 5 |
| Analytics, AI & seller monitoring | 3 of 5 |
| CRM, workplace integrations & exit | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3.5 of 5 |
Sales content management
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the right, current, approved material in front of the seller: a central library, search and recommendations in deal context, versioning and expiry so outdated decks disappear, approval workflows, templates that keep the brand, and content in several languages.
0 — A shared folder of files with no versioning, no search beyond file names and no statement on approvals or expiry.
3 — A central library with folders and full-text search, but old versions stay in circulation, there is no approval step, and personalised copies cannot be traced back to the master.
5 — A library with versioning and expiry dates, approval before publishing, permissions by team or region, content recommended by deal stage or CRM field, and German as a supported content and interface language.
8 — Superseded versions replaced everywhere they were shared, brand-locked templates sellers can personalise within limits, content tagged by language and market, compliance review workflows with an audit trail, and usage per asset reported back to the content owner.
10 — Content governance a regulated industry can rely on: every shared copy traceable to its approved master, automatic retirement of expired claims, a documented review log per asset, and export of the full library with its metadata and version history.
The Head of Sales
The Library is genuinely documented — a centralized, categorized directory of best sales calls organized by topic and sales stage, with contributions from top performers and early access for new hires — but everything captured is about call recordings, not the decks and one-pagers my sellers send. We found no public information on versioning, expiry, approval steps, brand-locked templates, or content search and recommendations in deal context. 5 6 7
The Enablement Manager
The library is a centralized, categorized collection of best sales calls — organized by topic, sales stage and objection handling, with descriptions, team contributions and access for new hires a week before their start date — which serves onboarding well but is not a governed document library. We found no public information on versioning, approval workflows, expiry of outdated material, brand-locked templates, or search and content recommendations in deal context. 5 6 7 1
The Product Marketer
What is documented is a centralised, folder-organised library of best sales calls with snippet descriptions, sorted by topic and sales stage — a coaching asset, not a collateral library. We found no public information on versioning, expiry, approval workflows before publishing, brand-locked templates, or usage reported back per asset to a content owner, which is what I need to retire a superseded deck everywhere it lives. 5 6 7
The CRM Integrator
The library is centralized and folder-organized — best calls and snippets by topic, sales stage and objection handling, with descriptions, team contributions and pre-start access for new hires. I found no public information on versioning, expiry, approval workflows or brand-locked templates for sales collateral, so this reads as a training library rather than governed content. 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
The Library is a central, secure, categorized directory of recorded sales calls organized by topic and sales stage, with descriptions and contributions from top performers, but it is a store of recordings rather than approved collateral: we found no public information on versioning, approval before publishing, expiry of outdated material, or library search. 5 6 7
The Skeptic
What the pages actually evidence is a library of recorded sales calls — folders by topic and sales stage, descriptions, team contributions — not a library of decks and collateral. We found no public information on versioning, approval before publishing, expiry of outdated material, brand-locked templates, content tagging by language or market, or usage reported back per asset. 1 5 6
Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The shared space with the customer: digital sales rooms, mutual action plans, proposals and trackable links — judged on what the buyer is told about being tracked and whether tracking can be limited, because the people opening the room are another company's employees.
0 — Links or rooms that track opens and time per page with no statement of what is recorded or whether the recipient is informed.
3 — Digital sales rooms or tracked links with engagement analytics marketed as "buyer intent", a privacy policy that covers the vendor's own website only, and no setting to limit tracking.
5 — Digital sales rooms with shared content, a mutual action plan and comments, the engagement data recorded per visitor documented, a consent or notice step for recipients available, and tracking switchable per room or link.
8 — Rooms in the customer's branding and own domain, access controls (email verification, expiry, download blocking), anonymous or aggregate-only analytics as an option, a retention period for visitor data stated, and the vendor's role as processor for visitor data set out in the DPA.
10 — Engagement designed around the buyer's rights: tracking off or aggregate by default until the seller enables it with a recorded notice, visitors able to see and delete what was recorded about them, a TDDDG and GDPR assessment published, and room content and history exportable for both sides.
The Head of Sales
We found no public information on digital sales rooms, mutual action plans, or trackable buyer-facing links in any captured page; the documented modules are conversation capture, call reviews, library and CRM filling, with an email follow-up module that appears only as a name. For deals that live on the buyer committee reopening the space after the demo, no capability of this kind shows up in the captures. 1 7
The Enablement Manager
The published module list names internal tools — summaries, call reviews, CRM filling, email follow-up — with no buyer-facing digital sales room, mutual action plan or trackable link in evidence, and the privacy policy's tracking statements cover Modjo's own website and marketing emails only. We found no public information on any shared space with the customer, so there is little to assess beyond that absence. 1 2
The Product Marketer
The published module list names nothing resembling a digital sales room, mutual action plan or buyer-facing shared space, and we found no public information on any of them. The only tracking evidenced is the vendor's own cookies and pixels on its website and marketing emails, which concerns the vendor's own audience rather than a customer's buyers. 1 7 2
The CRM Integrator
I found no public information on digital sales rooms, mutual action plans, proposals or trackable content links. The only buyer-facing surface evidenced is the call itself, and there the consent page requires explicit opt-in before recording, stops the recording automatically on a decline and logs decisions exportable as CSV — strong on calls, silent on the shared-space side of the criterion. 8 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages describe no digital sales room, mutual action plan, or trackable link aimed at buyers — the published modules are conversation capture, summaries, scoring, library, reviews and CRM filling — so there is nothing on buyer notice or limits on tracking to assess. The only tracking documented is the vendor's own website cookies and marketing pixels, which concern the vendor's site and emails rather than a customer's buyers. 1 2 7
The Skeptic
We found no public information on digital sales rooms, mutual action plans, proposals or trackable buyer links — the published module list contains no such module, so there is nothing to judge on what a room records about visitors. The only tracking documented is on the vendor's own website and marketing emails, which is about the vendor's prospects, not the customer's buyers. 1 2
Onboarding, training & coaching
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Making sellers ready: onboarding paths, courses and certifications, role-play and practice with feedback, and call recording or conversation analysis where offered — judged on whether recording respects that every participant in a German call has to consent.
0 — No training features, or call recording offered with no statement on participant consent.
3 — Courses and quizzes in a basic learning area, and call recording or AI role-play marketed without saying how participants are informed or how long recordings are kept.
5 — Onboarding paths with courses, quizzes and certifications, practice exercises with manager feedback, and — where calls are recorded — a documented consent announcement for all participants and a stated retention period for recordings.
8 — Training linked to content and deal stages, AI role-play with the scoring criteria described, manager coaching workflows, recording consent configurable per country with external participants able to decline, transcripts deletable on request, and German supported for transcription and training content.
10 — Readiness that can be evidenced and defended: certifications tied to measurable skills, scoring models documented in a form a works council can review, recordings and scores restricted to defined roles, retention configurable per data type, and every coaching feature usable without recording calls.
The Head of Sales
Coaching is the heart of the product: call reviews with comments and sharing, AI-flagged coaching opportunities, a best-calls library that customers say halves ramp time, and a consent model I could defend to a works council — participants explicitly opt in or out before a meeting, a decline automatically stops recording, and decisions are logged and exportable. We found no public information on courses, quizzes, certifications, AI role-play, or consent configurable per country, which is what separates the mid band from the top. 3 5 7 8 9
The Enablement Manager
The consent machinery is what I would show a German customer's works council: a consent page before the meeting forces an explicit opt-in or opt-out, a decline stops the recording automatically and notifies the host, consent decisions are logged with timestamps and audit-proof identifiers exportable as CSV, and retention is client-configurable. The ramp itself rests on the best-calls library with pre-start access plus manager feedback through call reviews and coaching insights, but we found no public information on structured onboarding paths, courses, certifications, or role-play practice with scoring. 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Product Marketer
Onboarding through a curated call library, manager coaching with comments and sharing, post-call self-assessment and material organised by deal stage are all evidenced, with transcription in a hundred-plus languages. Consent is the best-documented part: a consent page before each meeting, decline stops the recording automatically even for a late joiner, decisions are logged with a CSV export available, retention is client-configurable, and the contract obliges the employer to inform participants. We found no public information on courses, quizzes, certifications or AI role-play, and none on configuring consent per country. 7 8 3 9 6 1
The CRM Integrator
Coaching is the core product: AI call scoring against playbooks, call reviews with comments, manager insights on methodology adoption and a library built to halve new-hire ramp time. Consent is handled properly — explicit opt-in for all participants, automatic stop on decline, logged decisions — and retention periods are client-configurable; I found no public information on courses, certifications, AI role-play or per-country consent configuration. 7 8 9 10 3
The Data Protection Officer
Recording consent is engineered rather than assumed: a consent page before each video meeting forces an explicit opt-in, a decline stops the recording and notifies the host, decisions are logged with identifiers and timestamps and exportable as CSV, and the retention period is set by the client. Coaching rests on the library of best calls, call reviews with comments, and manager insights on playbook adoption, with the AI call score documented as attributed to the call and not the employee; we found no public information on courses, certifications, AI role-play, or consent configured per country. 3 7 8 9 10
The Skeptic
This is where the pages are strong: a consent page before video meetings, decline stops the recording and notifies the host, late joiners who refuse stop the recording on entry, per-participant consent decisions are logged and exportable, the recorder joins visibly with a sound signal, retention is client-configurable, and the DPA puts the duty to inform employees and correspondents on the client. Coaching workflows, call reviews with comments and post-call self-assessment are real, but we found no public information on courses, certifications or role-play, and consent configuration per country and transcript deletion on request are not evidenced. 2 3 7 8
Analytics, AI & seller monitoring
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the platform measures and concludes — content usage and influence on revenue, seller activity and AI-generated scores or recommendations — and whether the customer can see how a score is built, limit what is measured about individual sellers, and switch AI features off. A system that rates employees is a co-determination matter in Germany.
0 — Seller scores, rankings or AI insights marketed with no statement of what they are computed from or who can see them.
3 — Dashboards on content usage and seller activity, AI features described as benefits, but no documentation of inputs, no way to restrict individual-level views, and no model provider named.
5 — Content usage and engagement reported per asset and team, AI features each described with purpose and inputs and switchable per account, individual seller reports limited by role, and the AI model provider or subprocessor named.
8 — Analytics configurable to team-level aggregation, AI outputs shown with their sources, customer data excluded from model training by default and stated so, EU processing available for AI features, and documentation aimed at works council agreements.
10 — Measurement the people measured can trust: every metric and score defined publicly, individual-level tracking off until enabled by policy, access to individual data logged, AI features off by default until the customer enables them, and the vendor's EU AI Act position published.
The Head of Sales
Rare and welcome: the vendor states the score is attributed to the call and not the employee, an objective check of predefined elements, with a defined GDPR purpose and visibility defaulted to call participants plus managers and restrictable; all AI analysis runs on transcripts only, hosted exclusively in the EU, with client-set retention. We found no public information on switching AI features off, a named transcription or model provider, team-level aggregation, or a statement that customer data is excluded from model training. 2 3 9 10
The Enablement Manager
The AI Call Scoring documentation states the score is attributed to the call rather than the employee, that it objectively measures whether predefined playbook elements were mentioned, and that visibility defaults to call participants plus managers with restriction available — framing a works council can review — and the DPA states AI-processed data is hosted exclusively in the EU with an AI Act compliance undertaking. However, we found no public information on switching AI features off per account, configuring analytics to team-level aggregation, or whether customer data is excluded from model training. 2 3 9 10
The Product Marketer
AI call scoring is documented more openly than most: the score is attributed to the call rather than the employee, it checks whether predefined playbook elements were mentioned, it runs on transcripts only, by default it is visible just to call participants and managers, and AI processing is stated as exclusively within the EU alongside an AI Act compliance undertaking. We found no public information on switching AI features off per account, team-level aggregation of individual reports, exclusion of customer data from model training, or access logging on individual data. 9 10 2 3
The CRM Integrator
The scoring documentation reads like it was written for a works council: the score is attributed to the call and not the employee, default visibility is call participants plus managers and can be restricted, and the processing purpose is stated. AI processing is said to run exclusively in the EU with a published AI Act commitment and named AI environments; I found no public information on switching AI features off per account or on exclusion of customer data from model training by default. 9 10 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
What the platform measures about sellers is unusually well documented: the AI call score is publicly described as an objective check of predefined playbook elements attributed to the call rather than the employee, default visibility is limited to the participants concerned plus managers and can be restricted, and the DPA commits to the EU AI Act with AI data hosted exclusively in the EU and third-party AI environments such as Anthropic, OpenAI and Dust named. We found no public information on switching AI features off per account, on excluding customer data from model training, or on logging access to individual-level data, which a works council review would ask for. 2 3 9 10
The Skeptic
AI call scoring is documented better than most: analyses run on transcripts only, the score is presented as an assessment of predefined playbook elements attached to the call, and by default only the call participants plus managers and administrators see it. The DPA commits to the AI Act timetable and states client-data processing is hosted exclusively in the EU; what is missing is any evidence that scoring can be switched off per account, that views can be aggregated to team level, or that customer data is excluded from model training. 3 9 10
CRM, workplace integrations & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Fitting into the seller's day and the company's stack: CRM integration in both directions, email and calendar add-ins, Microsoft Teams and Office, single sign-on and provisioning, an API — and getting content and history out when the contract ends.
0 — No integrations and no API; content is shared by downloading and re-attaching files.
3 — A Salesforce or HubSpot connector and a browser extension, with no statement of which data flows in which direction, and no export beyond single files.
5 — Documented integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot and Microsoft Dynamics, Outlook and Gmail add-ins, Microsoft Teams, SSO via SAML, and engagement data written back to the CRM record.
8 — SCIM provisioning, a documented REST API with webhooks, integrations with the e-signature, CPQ and learning tools named, field mappings configurable, and bulk export of content library and analytics.
10 — Integration and exit designed in: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, deletion that propagates to connected systems, and a documented exit process that hands back content with versions, rooms, training records and analytics in open formats.
The Head of Sales
Salesforce and HubSpot are deep — embedded access, automatic sync, summaries written to any native or custom object or field — and SCIM 2.0 provisioning across Okta, Entra ID and other identity providers plus APIs, webhooks and MCP are documented. We found no public information on Microsoft Dynamics, Microsoft Teams, or SAML single sign-on, and no captured e-signature, CPQ or learning integrations. At contract end the captured terms cover the return of recordings in raw format within thirty days, an analytics export help article appears without captured contents, and we found no public information on exporting the library. 1 2 3 11 12
The Enablement Manager
SCIM 2.0 provisioning is documented in detail with named identity providers and full lifecycle handling, Modjo embeds in Salesforce and HubSpot with automatic writes to any native or custom object or field, and the published interfaces definition names APIs, webhooks, MCP and a Chrome extension. We found no public information on SAML single sign-on, Microsoft Dynamics or Teams, and the exit path shown is a 30-day window to retrieve recordings in raw file format rather than a documented bulk export of the library and analytics. 1 2 3 12
The Product Marketer
Modjo meets sellers in Salesforce, HubSpot, the inbox and the calendar, auto-fills any native or custom CRM object or field, and SCIM 2.0 provisioning is documented down to supported identity providers and the endpoint; APIs, webhooks, MCP and a Chrome extension are named. On exit, recordings can be demanded back in raw file format within thirty days before destruction, but we found no public information on bulk export of the content library or analytics, or a documented exit process beyond that clause. 1 12 2 3
The CRM Integrator
This is what I want on paper: summaries written back to any native or custom object or field in Salesforce or HubSpot, SCIM 2.0 provisioning with Entra ID and Okta among the named identity providers, and APIs, webhooks and MCP enumerated as interfaces. I found no public information on Dynamics, Teams, SAML SSO or bulk export of the content library — the documented exit clause covers recordings only, returnable in raw file format within thirty days of termination. 1 2 3 12
The Data Protection Officer
Integration into the seller's day is documented in both directions: Modjo embedded within Salesforce and HubSpot, automatic updates of any native or custom CRM object or field, SCIM 2.0 provisioning with named identity providers, and APIs, webhooks, MCP and a Chrome extension. We found no public information on Microsoft Dynamics, Microsoft Teams or SAML single sign-on; at contract end the documented hand-back covers recordings in raw file format within thirty days, and the help center lists an article on analytic exports whose scope the captured pages do not show. 1 2 3 11 12
The Skeptic
SCIM 2.0 provisioning with a named list of identity providers, APIs, webhooks, MCP, a Chrome extension, and Modjo embedded inside Salesforce and HubSpot with automatic field updates to native or custom objects are all documented. We found no public information on Microsoft Dynamics, Microsoft Teams, single sign-on via SAML, or e-signature and CPQ tools, and the exit path is narrow: a 30-day window to request return of recordings in raw file format, with no evidence of bulk export of the library alongside the analytics exports page. 1 2 3 11 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where content, buyer engagement data and call recordings are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are — including the transcription and AI providers that recordings and documents are passed to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and transcription or AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or recordings and documents are transcribed or analysed outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — transcription, AI, email tracking, support access — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations including transcription and AI providers, and a DPA covering buyer engagement data and recordings.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, transcription and AI features running within the EU on providers the customer can see, and certification published.
The Head of Sales
The captured agreement names a French contracting entity with hosting on Amazon Web Services in France, states data for the AI features is hosted exclusively in the EU, and offers standard contractual clauses for subprocessors, with SOC 2 Type II and an Article 28 data processing agreement in place. The independently computed sovereignty attributes mark entity jurisdiction, ownership and data residency as unconfirmed, the subprocessor page appears without captured locations, and the transcription provider behind the 100-plus-language claim stays unnamed. 2 3 4 7
The Enablement Manager
The contracting entity is a French company — RINGO trading as Modjo, registered in Nanterre — with hosting on Amazon Web Services in France and a DPA stating data processed in the AI framework is hosted exclusively in the EU, alongside SOC 2 Type II and GDPR claims. A subprocessors page is linked but its contents were not captured, and while the privacy policy names third-party AI environments such as Anthropic, OpenAI and Dust, the captured pages give no locations for them or for transcription providers, and we found no public information on ownership. 1 2 3 4
The Product Marketer
The contracting entity is a French company (RINGO trading as Modjo, Neuilly-sur-Seine), hosting is on Amazon Web Services in France, AI processing is stated as exclusively within the EU, and transfers rely on standard contractual clauses or BCRs. A subprocessors page exists in the trust centre, yet the captured pages give no named transcription or AI providers with locations, and we found no public information on ownership. 3 4 7 1
The CRM Integrator
The DPA names a French contracting entity with AWS hosting in France and the EEA, states AI processing is hosted exclusively in the EU, and puts standard contractual clauses or BCRs behind every sub-processor. A subprocessor page exists in the trust center navigation, but I found no public information capturing its contents — provider locations including transcription — or on ownership. 3 4 1 7
The Data Protection Officer
The DPA names a French contracting entity with its registered office in Neuilly-sur-Seine, hosting on Amazon Web Services in France, AI processing exclusively within the EU, and standard contractual clauses or approved BCRs for sub-processors, with a sub-processor page linked in the trust center and Deepl named for translation. The independently sourced sovereignty attributes nonetheless record data residency and sub-processor exposure as unconfirmed, and we found no public information naming the transcription provider or the locations on the sub-processor list. 2 3 4 7
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is a French company registered in Neuilly-sur-Seine, hosting is Amazon Web Services in France and the wider EEA, and the DPA states all data processed on behalf of clients is hosted exclusively within the European Union, with SOC 2 Type II published. A subprocessors page exists but its contents are not shown, so the locations of the transcription and AI providers — Anthropic, OpenAI and Dust appear as named third-party AI environments without locations — remain unevidenced, and we found no public information on ownership. 1 3 4
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the per-seat price and which roles need a seat, platform fees, minimum seat counts, which modules (content, rooms, training, coaching, AI) are bundled, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but which roles need a paid seat, minimum seat counts or which modules a tier includes are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public per seat with the main features per tier, but at least one commonly needed piece (platform fee, viewer or creator seats, coaching or AI add-on, CRM integration) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with seat types and minimums, add-on and module prices listed, implementation fees stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given number of sellers, content creators and managers, with every module, add-on, platform fee and overage published.
The Head of Sales
A Pricing page appears in the site navigation, but the captured pages show no figures: we found no per-seat price, seat types or minimums, module bundling, or minimum term. From these pages I cannot begin to compute the annual invoice for twenty account executives. 7
The Enablement Manager
A pricing page appears in the site navigation, but no price figures were captured anywhere — no per-seat price, seat types, minimum seat counts, module bundles, implementation fees or minimum terms. From the published pages I have, a buyer cannot compute the annual invoice; we found no public information on which roles require a paid seat or how the modules are bundled. 7 1
The Product Marketer
Site navigation shows a pricing page exists, but no captured page states a single price, seat type, minimum seat count, module bundling or minimum term, even though the full module list is published. The annual invoice is not computable from public information, and we found no public information on any of those pricing details. 7 1
The CRM Integrator
Site navigation shows a pricing page, but I found no public information on any price figure, seat type, minimum seat count, module bundling or minimum term, so a real annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 7
The Data Protection Officer
Site navigation shows a Pricing page, but no price figure is captured anywhere: we found no public information on per-seat prices, which roles need a paid seat, platform fees, module bundling or the minimum term, so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from the captured pages. 7
The Skeptic
Site navigation shows a Pricing page, but no per-seat price, seat types, minimum seat counts, module bundling, platform fees or minimum terms appear anywhere captured. The annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 7
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 Modjo
Is Modjo European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Modjo is based.
Where does Modjo store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention France and Europe as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.
Does Modjo have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Modjo?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Showpad (2.5/5), Bigtincan (2/5) and Flowla (2/5) highest among the other 18 Sales Enablement 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 Showpad (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Modjo 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 23 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Data processing agreement (dpa) — found from the homepage www.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Sales content management — found from sitemap www.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Sales content management — found from sitemap help.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Onboarding, training & coaching — found from sitemap www.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding, training & coaching — found from sitemap help.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Analytics, AI & seller monitoring — found from sitemap www.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Analytics, AI & seller monitoring — found from sitemap help.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 CRM, workplace integrations & exit — found from sitemap help.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 CRM, workplace integrations & exit — found from sitemap help.modjo.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →