Sales Enablement
Outreach
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Outreach, Inc. · www.outreach.io
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.
Outreach at a glance
- Vendor
- Outreach, 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
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Outreach 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Outreach's evidence is strongest on integrations: CRM and integrations scored 5-6, citing a documented REST API, RFC-conformant SCIM provisioning, SAML 2.0 single sign-on, and revenue attribution for Salesforce and Dynamics. 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
Outreach's evidence is strongest on integrations: CRM and integrations scored 5-6, citing a documented REST API, RFC-conformant SCIM provisioning, SAML 2.0 single sign-on, and revenue attribution for Salesforce and Dynamics. Coaching and readiness scored 4 with no variation, resting on the Kaia consent-wrapped join link with customisable notice text and per-provider control. The weakest area is pricing transparency at 2-3: the terms publish mechanics — twelve-month renewals, thirty days' notice to stop renewal, sixty days' notice of price changes — but we found no public information on per-seat prices, minimum seat counts or module bundling, so the annual invoice is a sales conversation. Judges split widest on content management at 2-4: some credit access control through team Collections, others see permissions around a message library; we found no public information on versioning, expiry or approval. Analytics and monitoring sits at 3-4 alongside buyer engagement, with AI agents described as benefits and no model provider named. Sovereignty sits at 3: Outreach Corporation contracts from Seattle under Washington law, EU hosting is an option, and we found no public information on subprocessors.
Speaks for it
- Documented integration depth: RFC 7643/7644-conformant SCIM provisioning, SAML 2.0 single sign-on, an OAuth REST API with reporting access, and revenue attribution for Salesforce and Dynamics
- Consent mechanics for recorded meetings are documented in detail: a consent-wrapped Kaia join link attendees click through, customisable notice text, logo and privacy link, per-provider switching, and consent rules keyed to the prospect's physical location
- Email open and click tracking can be restricted at admin, profile, user and template level, with granular prospect opt-outs from emails and calls
- Reporting is documented across team and rep performance, sequences, pipeline, forecast and revenue attribution, with exports and API access
- The Buyer Intent Score is explained as an account field fed by named providers — Bombora, TechTarget, G2, 6Sense — via the CRM
Held against it
- We found no public information on per-seat prices, which roles need a paid seat, minimum seat counts or which modules a tier includes, leaving the annual invoice to a sales conversation
- Content governance is team Collections over sequences, templates and snippets, with no public information on versioning, expiry of outdated material or approval before publishing
- AI agents across coaching and forecasting are described only as benefits, with no named model provider, no documented inputs and no per-account off switch found
- We found no public information on the subprocessor list, including where recordings are transcribed or analysed, and Trust Center access runs through your Account Executive
- Open tracking is enabled by default when allowed in the organisation, and we found no public information on a notice or consent step for tracked recipients
Best for
- You run Salesforce or Dynamics and want SCIM provisioning, SAML 2.0 single sign-on and a documented API to automate seats and pull reporting
- Your team records prospect meetings and needs documented consent mechanics — consent-wrapped join links, per-provider control, location-based rules — before rollout
- You prioritise accounts on intent data and want a score whose inputs are documented as named third-party feeds via your CRM
Avoid if
- You need a computable annual invoice — published per-seat prices, seat minimums and module bundling — before procurement can commit
- Your works council must review what feeds seller-facing AI scores, who the model provider is and how to switch AI off per account
- You need versioning, expiry and approval workflows so superseded decks leave sellers' hands
- You require a documented exit process that hands back content and analytics when the contract ends
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Sales content management | 1.5 of 5 |
| Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms | 2 of 5 |
| Onboarding, training & coaching | 2 of 5 |
| Analytics, AI & seller monitoring | 2 of 5 |
| CRM, workplace integrations & exit | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 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
Content governance means sequences, templates and snippets locked into team collections with a delegable content-manager role, which keeps messaging rights clean, but I found no public information on versioning, expiry, approval workflows, multilingual content, or search that surfaces material in deal context. For my sellers that means the outdated-deck problem stays unsolved on the evidence shown. 2 6
The Enablement Manager
Governance here is real — Sequences, Templates and Snippets sit in Collections tied to Teams, with a delegable Content Manager profile and an opt-in roll-out an admin can reverse — but I found no public information on versioning, expiry, approval workflows before publishing, search, or content in several languages. Without version control and retirement of outdated claims, a new hire's old deck stays in circulation no matter how well the permissions are drawn. 6 11
The Product Marketer
Collections tied to Teams with a Content Manager profile and enforced sharing intent give real access control over sequences, templates and snippets, which is more than a shared folder. But I found no public information on versioning, expiry, or an approval step before content ships — a superseded deck just keeps sitting in its Collection, and nothing is said about brand-locked templates or language tagging. 5 6
The CRM Integrator
Content governance here is collections of sequences, templates and snippets with team-based access and a delegable content-manager role, which does keep the wrong teams out of material. We found no public information on versioning, expiry of outdated material, approval before publishing, search, or multi-language content, and no documented export of the library for the day the contract ends. That is a governed folder set, not content lifecycle management. 6
The Data Protection Officer
Sequences, templates and snippets sit in a central library with Collections tied to Teams, an opt-in governance model, a delegated content-manager profile and role-based access control. We found no public information on versioning, expiry dates, approval steps before publishing, search, or content and interface languages beyond English. 6 4
The Skeptic
Content governance here means Sequences, Templates and Snippets placed in Collections tied to Teams, with a reserved Public Collection and sharing options of 'see it' versus 'see and use it' — permission structure around a message library, not governed sales material. I found no public information on versioning, approval before publishing, expiry of outdated material, search, recommendations by deal stage, or any language support. 6 4
Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms
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
Mutual action plans appear only as a named capability, and the tracked links are email opens and clicks, enabled by default when the org allows them, though admins can switch tracking off at the org, profile, user and template level. I found no public information on digital sales rooms, on what is recorded per recipient, or on any notice step for the buyer's people, so this is a long way from a room my buying committee would open. 1 7 8 12
The Enablement Manager
Mutual action plans are named as a capability and open and click tracking can be limited at admin, profile and user level or per template, which is a step up from a fixed tracker. But open tracking is enabled by default, intent signals are marketed as a "Buyer Intent Score" fed by Bombora, 6Sense and similar providers, and I found no public information on a notice or consent step for the recipients being tracked, no rooms, and a captured support article about tracking activity still arriving on some messages after template tracking was turned off. 1 7 8 12
The Product Marketer
Opens and clicks on links are tracked with opens enabled by default, limits exist at admin, profile, user and template level, and mutual action plans are on the capability list. Beyond that I found no public information on digital sales rooms, on telling the recipient what is recorded, or on a retention period for visitor data — the buyer's side of the exchange is essentially undocumented. 1 7 8
The CRM Integrator
Tracked links are real — open tracking is enabled by default when allowed in the org and click tracking runs per template — though admins can restrict tracking at org, profile and user levels, which is a genuine control. Mutual action plans appear as a capability name, and we found no public information on digital sales rooms, on what is recorded per recipient, on a notice or consent step for recipients, or on a retention period for visitor data. Tracking on by default with no recipient notice keeps this below the middle of the range. 7 8 13
The Data Protection Officer
Email open and click tracking is documented with switches at admin, profile and user level, per-template disabling, and granular prospect opt-outs from emails and calls — though track opens is enabled by default when allowed in the organisation. Mutual action plans appear as a named capability, but we found no public information on digital sales rooms with shared content, any notice or consent step for recipients of tracked links, what engagement data is recorded per visitor, or a retention period for it. 1 4 7 8
The Skeptic
Open and click tracking on emails to named prospects exists, admins can govern it at organization, profile and user levels, and Track Opens is enabled by default when allowed — the burden of switching it off sits with the seller's employer. Mutual Action Plans appear as a capability name with no detail, and I found no public information on digital sales rooms, on what is recorded about the people opening links, or on any notice or consent step for recipients; prospects can be opted out of emails and calls, which mostly serves the sender's compliance. 7 1 4
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
The Kaia recording consent page is genuinely good — a consent-wrapped join link attendees click through, customisable text and logo, per-provider switching — and two-party consent prompts exist for calls, but the customer carries the consent obligation and I found no stated retention period for recordings. Beyond the Outreach University support resource I found no public information on onboarding paths, certifications, role-play with feedback or German-language training. 2 9 10 11
The Enablement Manager
The recording consent story is the strongest part for a German rollout: a Kaia consent page replaces the meeting link with a consent-wrapped link every attendee clicks through before joining, consent can be switched per conferencing provider with a customizable notice, and there is documented guidance on consent by prospect location plus a manual two-party consent dialog for calls. On readiness, though, I found no public information on onboarding paths, certifications, role-play with feedback or manager coaching workflows — Outreach University and rep coaching appear as bare names — and no stated retention period for recordings. 3 9 10 11
The Product Marketer
The consent-wrapped Kaia join link with customisable notice text, privacy link, logo and per-provider control, plus the two-party consent dialog, is a genuinely documented consent announcement for recorded meetings — better than most. But apart from a named Rep coaching capability and Outreach University, I found no public information on courses, certifications, role-play with described scoring, or how long recordings are kept. 1 9 10 11
The CRM Integrator
The recording-consent mechanics are the strong part: a hosted consent page replaces the join link, attendees click through before joining, the text and a privacy-policy link are customizable, consent can be enabled per conferencing provider, and US two-party consent handling is documented with location-based rules. Beyond rep coaching and conversation intelligence as capability names and Outreach University as a listed resource, we found no public information on onboarding paths, certifications, role-play practice with manager feedback, or a stated retention period for recordings. 9 10 13
The Data Protection Officer
The Kaia consent page replaces the meeting join link with a consent-wrapped link attendees click through, customisable with the customer's privacy policy link and controllable per conferencing provider, and a two-party consent dialog plus consent rules tied to the prospect's physical location are documented. We found no public information on a retention period for recordings, deletion of transcripts on request, or the substance of courses and certifications beyond the Outreach University name, and the terms place the duty to obtain consent on the customer. 9 10 2
The Skeptic
The Kaia consent page is real machinery: a consent-wrapped join link attendees click through before the meeting, customisable text, logo and privacy link, per-provider enablement, plus a two-party-consent dialog for recorded calls and consent rules keyed to the prospect's physical location. But the wrapper attaches only to meetings scheduled after the feature is turned on, the terms put consent squarely on the customer with no warranty of compliance, and I found no public information on a retention period for recordings or on coaching substance — 'Rep coaching' and Outreach University are names, with no courses, practice or scoring described. 10 9 2 1
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
Reporting covers team and rep results, sequences, pipeline, forecast and revenue attribution, and the buyer intent field is honestly documented as fed by third-party providers via CRM. But the headline AI agents are described only as teammates acting across coaching and forecasting, with no documented inputs, no model provider named, and no way shown to switch AI off or aggregate away individual seller views beyond generic role-based access — a co-determination problem I cannot prepare for. 1 4 11 12
The Enablement Manager
Reporting covers team and rep performance, sequences, pipeline and revenue attribution with exports and API access, and the Buyer Intent Score's inputs are at least described as third-party intent feeds or CRM data. But the AI agents spanning coaching and forecasting have no named model provider, no documented inputs and no customer switch that I could find, and rep-level reporting sits beside generic role-based access with no statement of who may see individual seller results — a works council would have nothing to review. 1 4 11 12
The Product Marketer
Team and rep performance, sequence, pipeline and revenue attribution reporting are documented, and the buyer intent score is openly explained as a field fed by named third-party providers through the CRM rather than a black box. Still, I found no public information on switching AI features off per account, on who the AI model provider is, or on restricting individual seller views in reports — and role-based access controls alone don't settle that for a works council. 1 4 11 12
The CRM Integrator
Reporting covers team and rep performance, sequences, pipeline and revenue attribution for Salesforce and Dynamics, all pullable through the API, and the Buyer Intent Score is documented as an account field fed by named third-party providers via the CRM — real input transparency on that one score. The AI agents marketed across coaching, deal execution and forecasting are described as benefits only: we found no public information on their inputs, a per-account off switch, the model provider, or team-level aggregation limits, and role-based access is generic rather than documented for rep-level reports. 1 4 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Team and rep performance, sequence activity, pipeline and forecast reporting are documented, role-based access can restrict who sees individual-level views, and the buyer intent score's inputs are described as third-party providers via CRM. The AI agents spanning conversation intelligence, coaching and forecasting are described only as benefits: we found no public information on the inputs to seller-facing AI scores, a per-account way to switch AI features off, or the model provider behind them. 1 4 11 12
The Skeptic
Reporting covers team and rep performance, sequences, pipeline and revenue attribution for Salesforce and Dynamics, and the Buyer Intent Score is at least documented as an account field imported from named third parties via CRM. The AI side shows none of that provenance: agents across coaching and forecasting are marketed as benefits with no documentation of inputs and no named model provider, and I found no public information on switching AI features off, excluding customer data from training, or limiting individual seller views beyond generic role-based access statements. A platform that reports on individual reps while documenting none of its arithmetic is exactly what a works council will ask about first. 11 12 1 4
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
SAML single sign-on, an Outlook add-in, a Google calendar extension, SCIM provisioning in beta and a documented OAuth API with reporting export cover most of my stack, with Salesforce and Dynamics appearing through revenue attribution setup. I found no public information on engagement data written back to the CRM, on webhooks, or on any documented exit process handing back content and analytics at contract end. 4 10 11 13 14
The Enablement Manager
The provisioning depth stands out: RFC-conformant SCIM with OAuth 2.0, user and group lifecycle and a documented REST API with reporting access, alongside SAML 2.0 SSO, an Outlook add-in and Google Calendar extension covering Zoom, Webex, Teams and Google Meet, and Salesforce and Dynamics for revenue attribution. I found no public information on HubSpot or Gmail connectors, webhooks, configurable field mappings, or a documented exit process handing back content and analytics on contract end. 10 11 13 14
The Product Marketer
A documented REST API with registration and keys, RFC-conformant SCIM provisioning in beta, SAML single sign-on, an Outlook add-in with a one-click consent-meeting button, Google scheduling via extension, and Salesforce and Dynamics revenue attribution cover most of the seller's day. Webhooks, named e-signature or CPQ connections, configurable field mappings and a documented exit export of content and history are things I found no public information on. 4 10 11 13 14
The CRM Integrator
The strongest area: SAML 2.0 single sign-on with any identity provider, a SCIM implementation with full user and group operations conforming to the RFCs, a documented REST API with OAuth and public key registration, reporting data pullable via that API, revenue attribution set up for both Salesforce and Dynamics, and an Outlook add-in plus the browser extension. What holds it down for me: we found no public information on webhooks, on engagement data written back to the opportunity record as a documented flow, on e-signature or CPQ integrations, or on bulk export of the content library — the exit path I need — and the SCIM document is flagged as beta and subject to change. 4 10 11 13 14
The Data Protection Officer
SCIM provisioning is documented in detail (RFC 7643/7644, user and group management, beta status) alongside a documented API with OAuth 2.0, SAML 2.0 single sign-on, and Outlook add-in and Google calendar extension documentation, with revenue attribution for Salesforce and Dynamics. We found no public information on HubSpot, write-back of engagement data to the CRM record, webhooks, bulk export of the content library, or a documented exit process, though single and bulk right-to-be-forgotten deletion via admin menu and API is described. 4 10 11 13 14
The Skeptic
There is a documented API behind registration and a key, a SCIM provisioning implementation conforming to the relevant RFCs (flagged beta, with scopes, rate limits and the note that deactivating a user frees the license seat), SAML single sign-on, an Outlook add-in needing admin consent for calendar permissions, and a browser extension for Google. Salesforce and Dynamics appear through revenue attribution. I found no public information on engagement data written back to the CRM record, on HubSpot, on webhooks, or on a documented exit process that hands back content and history when the contract ends. 13 14 10 4 11
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 contracting entity is Outreach Corporation in Seattle under Washington law, EU hosting exists as an option for customers requiring EU tenancy, and no subprocessor list — including transcription and AI providers — is published, with EU model clauses and ISO 27701 as the named safeguards. For a DACH deal that is a procurement conversation before anything else. 2 3 4
The Enablement Manager
Outreach Corporation contracts from Seattle under Washington law and US export controls, offers an EU data center for customers who require EU tenancy, and puts EU model clauses in contracts — but the subprocessor list, including wherever Kaia recordings are transcribed or run through AI, is not public, with Trust Center access only through an Account Executive. EU hosting as an option with a non-EU contracting entity and no published subprocessor locations is precisely the middle of the road. 2 3 4
The Product Marketer
The contracting entity is Outreach Corporation in Seattle under Washington law with US export controls, and EU hosting is offered as an option backed by model clauses and ISO 27001/27701. There is no published subprocessor list, and I found no public information on where Kaia recordings and transcripts are processed — for a German buyer that gap sits exactly where consent-critical data lives. 2 3 4
The CRM Integrator
The contracting entity is Outreach Corporation in Seattle under Washington law and US export controls, while an EU data center is offered as a tenancy option and EU-citizen data is stated to be hosted in the EU, with standard contractual clauses in customer contracts — an option, not the standard. We found no published subprocessor list and no locations for transcription or AI processing of recorded calls, and the vendor's own captured pages leave data residency unconfirmed beyond those statements. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Outreach Corporation in Seattle under Washington law, while EU-citizen data hosted in the EU, a cross-platform EU data centre and EU model clauses in customer contracts are offered, with ISO 27001 and 27701 certification claimed. We found no public information on the subprocessor list, the hosting infrastructure by name, or where recordings and documents are transcribed and analysed, so the chain a German works council would ask about cannot be verified. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting party is Outreach Corporation of Seattle, governed by Washington law and US export controls, while an EU data center is offered to 'customers who require EU data tenancy' — EU hosting as an option rather than the default. Trust Center access is granted 'via your Account Executive', and I found no public information on the subprocessors, including any transcription or AI providers that recordings and documents are passed to. EU model clauses and ISO certifications are stated, but they travel with a chain of unnamed processors. 2 4 3
Pricing transparency
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
The homepage carries a view-pricing link and the terms point to a separate voice pricing page with a stated normal-use limit of 3000 minutes per user per month, but I found no public seat price, tier, seat-type model or module bundling in what I can see — the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. At least the renewal notice periods and customer-borne taxes are stated plainly. 1 2
The Enablement Manager
A pricing page exists and the Voice add-on is separately priced with a stated 3,000-minute-per-user normal-use ceiling and chargeable overages, plus public term mechanics — twelve-month renewals, thirty days to stop auto-renewal, customer pays the taxes. But I found no public per-seat figures for the platform tiers, and no statement of which roles need a paid seat, any seat minimums, or which modules a tier bundles, so the invoice is still a sales conversation. 1 2
The Product Marketer
A public pricing entry point and a Voice pricing URL exist, and the terms are refreshingly explicit on the mechanics — twelve-month auto-renewal, thirty-day termination notice, sixty-day price-change notice, customer pays taxes, and 3000 voice minutes per user per month before excess charges. But I found no public per-seat figures, seat-role breakdown, module bundling or minimum seat counts, so the annual invoice cannot be derived from the captured pages alone. 1 2
The CRM Integrator
A pricing page exists, but no per-seat prices, tiers, seat types or minimums are published in the captured material, so the annual invoice is not computable. The terms do give cost mechanics — the Voice add-on's fees at a separate URL with a normal-use ceiling of 3,000 minutes per user per month and chargeable excess, twelve-month renewals with notice periods, and the customer paying taxes — but we found no public information on implementation fees or which modules a tier includes. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
A pricing page exists and the terms state a twelve-month renewal term, taxes borne by the customer, and a voice add-on priced at a separate address with a normal-use cap of 3000 minutes of calls per user per month. We found no public information on per-seat prices, which roles need a paid seat, minimum seat counts, or which modules a tier includes, so the annual invoice cannot be worked out from the captures. 1 2
The Skeptic
A pricing page is linked and the terms publish real mechanics — twelve-month auto-renewing terms, thirty days' notice to stop renewal, sixty days' notice of price changes, taxes borne by the customer, and Voice charged extra with normal use defined as 'up to 3000 minutes of calls per user per month'. But the captured material contains no seat price of any kind: I found no public information on per-seat cost, which roles need a paid seat, minimum seat counts, or which modules a tier includes. The annual invoice is a conversation with sales. 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 | — | 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 Outreach
Is Outreach European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Outreach is based.
Where does Outreach store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Outreach have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Outreach?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Showpad (2.5/5), Modjo (2.5/5) and Bigtincan (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: Outreach 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. 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.
- 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
- 7 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
- 3 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 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 compliance 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 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.outreach.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.outreach.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.outreach.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Sales content management — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Sales content management — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Onboarding, training & coaching — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Onboarding, training & coaching — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Analytics, AI & seller monitoring — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Analytics, AI & seller monitoring — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 CRM, workplace integrations & exit — found from sitemap www.outreach.ai Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 CRM, workplace integrations & exit — found from sitemap support.outreach.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →