Sales Enablement
Showpad
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Showpad NV · www.showpad.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.
Showpad at a glance
- Vendor
- Showpad NV
- 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
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Showpad 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Showpad is strongest where it meets a revenue stack: CRM and integrations scores run 6 to 7, on out-of-the-box Salesforce, MS Dynamics and C4C connectors, a documented path to custom connectors, buyer interactions auto-logged back to the account, and a REST API with webhooks and a reporting export. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 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
Showpad is strongest where it meets a revenue stack: CRM and integrations scores run 6 to 7, on out-of-the-box Salesforce, MS Dynamics and C4C connectors, a documented path to custom connectors, buyer interactions auto-logged back to the account, and a REST API with webhooks and a reporting export. Content management clusters at 6 to 7 on a governed library — approved assets syncing from 15+ DAM platforms with permissions intact and versions controlled, brand guardrails on personalised templates, asset-level usage exportable. Coaching and readiness follows at 5 to 6. The weak flank is privacy documentation. Sovereignty scores range from 1 to 3, a spread that tracks whether a judge credited the Belgian contracting entity recorded in provenance information but not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages; we found no public information on hosting locations or named subprocessors, including transcription and AI providers. Buyer engagement and analytics and monitoring sit at 3 to 4 on undisclosed visitor tracking and employee-scoring AI with nothing a works council could review. Pricing transparency scores 0 to 2; no price figure appears anywhere captured.
Speaks for it
- Out-of-the-box Salesforce, MS Dynamics and C4C connectors with a documented path to custom CRMs, and buyer interactions auto-logged back to the account
- Approved assets sync from 15+ DAM platforms with permissions intact and versions controlled, under marketing-set brand guardrails
- Learning paths with enforced prerequisites, AI role-play, automated certifications and a My Team manager hub, with pitch scoring criteria named as message clarity, delivery and key points
- Granular analytics export to the customer's own BI is documented through a reporting export API
- The privacy policy states that personal data is not sold
Held against it
- We found no public information on hosting locations for content, buyer engagement data or AI processing, or on named subprocessors including transcription and AI providers
- We found no public information on what Shared Spaces record per visitor, on a notice or consent step for recipients, or on retention for visitor data
- We found no public information on the AI model provider, the inputs to AI outputs, or limiting individual seller views by role, leaving employee scoring without reviewable documentation
- We found no public information on consent, retention or deletion for pitch and role-play recordings and transcripts
- We found no public information on a documented exit process handing back content, rooms and analytics at contract end
Best for
- Your sellers work inside Salesforce, MS Dynamics or C4C and you need every buyer interaction logged back to the account without leaving the workflow
- You run enablement across divisions and want a governed content library fed from 15+ DAM platforms with brand guardrails and role-based permissions
- You want onboarding and certification programs with role-based learning paths, AI role-play and manager-graded assessments
Avoid if
- You must document hosting locations and named subprocessors, including AI and transcription providers, before procurement will sign
- Your works council needs reviewable documentation of how AI scores named sellers, and how recordings are consented to and retained
- Your buyers' employees open shared rooms and you need explicit recipient notice or per-room tracking limits
- You need a computable annual cost before entering a sales conversation
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Sales content management | 3 of 5 |
| Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms | 1.5 of 5 |
| Onboarding, training & coaching | 3 of 5 |
| Analytics, AI & seller monitoring | 2 of 5 |
| CRM, workplace integrations & exit | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 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
My sellers would be well served: content syncs in from 15+ DAM and cloud sources with permissions intact and versions under control, the Automated Content Builder personalises marketing-approved templates on-brand, role-specific permissions and custom homepages by division, region or role keep things relevant, and Search AI answers in deal context. Where I stop short of the top band: we found no public information on approval workflows with a documented review log, on expiry and retirement of outdated claims, or on language tagging of assets, and usage reporting back to content owners appears only as an export of asset views, shares and engagement. 5 6 11 10 2
The Enablement Manager
Approved templates with brand guardrails, permissions and versions flowing in from the DAM sync, deal-specific content suggestions inside the CRM, and per-asset views, shares and engagement data exportable — most of what keeps a new hire on current material. I found no public information on expiry dates for dated claims, a stated approval step before publishing, or a compliance review audit trail, so governance stops short of what a regulated buyer would demand. 5 6 11 2 10
The Product Marketer
Marketing-approved templates with brand compliance guardrails and an automated builder that keeps every pitch on-brand are exactly what I ask for, and asset-level views, shares and engagement data export back to the content owner — but I found no public information on approval workflows before publishing, expiry dates, or superseded versions being replaced everywhere a deck was shared; "versions under control" is asserted as a claim, not shown as a mechanism. 5 6 10 11
The CRM Integrator
A governed library is documented: DAM sync from 15+ platforms carries metadata, permissions and version control into the platform, marketing sets brand guardrails on the templates sellers personalise, role permissions are stated, and asset views, shares and engagement export through the reporting API. I found no public information on content expiry, an approval workflow with an audit trail, or export of the library itself with version history, so I stop short of the top. 2 5 6 11 10
The Data Protection Officer
A governed central library is well evidenced — versions kept under control through DAM and CMS sync, permissions by division and region, brand guardrails on template personalisation, AI-assisted library governance, and asset-level usage exportable to reporting. We found no public information on expiry dates that would retire outdated claims, an in-product approval workflow with an audit trail, or export of the full library with its version history, so governance stays partially evidenced. 5 6 11 2 10
The Skeptic
A governed library is well evidenced: approved assets sync in from SharePoint and 15+ DAM platforms with permissions intact and versions controlled, marketing sets brand guardrails on templated pitches, and per-asset usage goes back out through a reporting API. We found no public information on whether a superseded version disappears from copies already shared, or on a documented review log per asset — and the figure that sellers find content 25% faster comes from a single manufacturing customer story. 2 5 6 8 10 11
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
Shared Spaces with mutual action plans, buyer uploads, a management dashboard and CRM auto-logging are exactly the room I want a buying committee to actually open. But this criterion turns on what the buyer is told about tracking, and we found no public information on what engagement data is recorded per visitor, on a notice or consent step for recipients, or on a per-room switch to limit tracking — the privacy policy names recipient categories and states personal data is not sold, which is all the captured pages offer. 7 2 3
The Enablement Manager
Shared Spaces with mutual action plans, buyer uploads and a management dashboard give sellers a genuinely collaborative room rather than a tracked link. But I found no public information on what engagement tracking records about each visitor, whether the recipient is told, or whether tracking can be limited per room — when the people opening the room are another company's employees, that silence decides it. 7 1
The Product Marketer
Shared Spaces, mutual action plans, buyer uploads and a management dashboard over all buyer engagement are well evidenced — but I found no public information on what a recipient is told about tracking, whether tracking can be limited per room or link, room access controls, or a retention period for visitor data. The "Data + Trust" module is named with nothing captured on recipient notice. 7 11 1
The CRM Integrator
Shared Spaces as digital sales rooms, mutual action plans, buyer uploads and an oversight dashboard tying buyer activity to revenue are all documented, and the privacy policy states personal data is not sold. What is missing is everything about the people on the other side: I found no public information on what room visitors are told about tracking, any notice or consent step, per-room or per-link tracking limits, access controls, or retention for visitor data. 3 7
The Data Protection Officer
Shared Spaces as digital sales rooms with mutual action plans, buyer uploads and a management dashboard giving oversight of all buyer engagement are documented, with analytics tying buyer activity to revenue. But we found no public information on what is recorded per visitor, a notice or consent step for the buyer's employees opening a room, a per-room switch to limit tracking, or a retention period for visitor data — the second group being measured here is simply not described. 7 1 3
The Skeptic
Shared Spaces, mutual action plans, buyer uploads and a management dashboard giving oversight of all buyer engagement are marketed plainly, and buyer activity is piped into the tools reps use. We found no public information on what a room records about each visitor, on a notice or consent step for the people on the customer's side, on switching tracking off per room, or on how long visitor data is kept — the privacy policy offers recipient categories, not that. 3 7 11
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
This is close to the readiness stack I would put my twenty AEs through: learning paths with prerequisites and blended offline tasks, automated certification workflows, Roleplay AI with buyers who push back, pitch scoring described as message clarity, delivery and key points, competency evaluations against role benchmarks, and a My Team hub for grading and coaching. We found no public information on consent handling or retention for the seller-conversation capture behind the Field Seller Agent, on per-country consent settings, on deletable transcripts, or on German-language transcription — so I cannot defend the recording side to a works council on public evidence alone. 8 9 9 7
The Enablement Manager
Role-based learning paths with prerequisites, automated certification workflows, Roleplay AI with buyers who push back, and a My Team hub where a manager actually grades assessments and reviews pitches — this is onboarding measured in weeks, and the pitch scoring criteria are even named. I found no public information on a consent announcement for captured conversations, retention or deletion of recordings and transcripts, or German transcription support, which a German call makes non-negotiable. 8 9 9
The Product Marketer
Learning paths with prerequisites, certifications, AI role-play with named scoring criteria, and a manager hub for grading pitches are all evidenced — but I found no public information on consent announcements for recorded conversations, retention or deletion of recordings and transcripts, or external participants declining capture. The Field Seller Agent converts seller conversations into notes with no statement on how participants are informed. 8 9 9 7
The CRM Integrator
Learning paths with prerequisites, blended learning, AI-generated test questions, a manager hub for grading and reviewing pitches, competency evaluations against benchmarks and role-play with the scoring criteria actually named — message clarity, delivery, key points — is a serious readiness story, and learning analytics tie completion to win rates. I found no public information on recording consent for call participants, retention periods for recordings or scores, or documentation of the scoring models in a form a works council could review. 8 9 9
The Data Protection Officer
Onboarding paths with enforced prerequisites, certifications, practice exercises with manager feedback and AI role-play are thoroughly documented, and the pitch-scoring criteria are at least named as message clarity, delivery and key points. We found no public information on consent announcements or retention periods for recorded or analysed seller conversations, and no scoring documentation in a form a works council could review for the competency evaluations and pitch scores. 8 9 9
The Skeptic
Learning paths with enforced prerequisites, AI-generated quizzes, certifications, a manager hub for grading and pitch review, and role-play against AI buyers who push back make the readiness side concrete, and pitch scoring at least names its criteria — message clarity, delivery, key points. We found no public information on participant consent, on retention periods for pitch and role-play recordings, or on restricting which roles may see a seller's scores. 2 8 9 9
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
The analytics estate is rich — top-performer and content-conversion patterns, competency scores correlated with performance outcomes, learning data tied to win rate, deal velocity and time to first deal, plus granular export to our own BI. But the platform demonstrably rates individual sellers, and we found no public information on the inputs to the AI features, the model provider, restricting individual-level views by role, switching AI features off per account, or excluding customer data from model training — a claim of secure, regulated AI stands in for all of it, which no works council will accept. 1 9 8 10 2
The Enablement Manager
Dashboards correlate course completion and competency scores with win rates and time to first deal, and granular analytics export to the customer's own BI — but top-performer pattern claims and pitch scores are marketed with no statement of who can see individual data, whether individual tracking can be limited, whether AI features can be switched off, or which model provider is used. A system that rates employees is a co-determination matter, and this is not yet in a form a works council could review. 8 1 9 10
The Product Marketer
Usage, top-performer patterns and per-rep competency scores feed dashboards, and granular analytics export to BI is documented — but I found no public information on the AI model provider, per-account switches for AI features, or limiting individual seller views by role. Pitch scoring names its inputs (message clarity, delivery, key points), though nothing captured addresses documentation a works council could review. 1 9 10
The CRM Integrator
Per-asset and coach analytics exist, granular data exports to our own BI are documented, and the pitch scoring criteria are at least named. I found no public information on the inputs to the other AI outputs, any restriction of individual seller views, a named AI model provider, EU processing for AI features, or training-data treatment — and a platform that scores my sellers is a co-determination matter I have to defend internally. 7 10 1 9
The Data Protection Officer
Dashboards on content, training and seller performance, competency scores correlated with outcomes, and a Genie AI core are described as benefits, including the claim of recognising patterns behind top performers and applying them to every seller. We found no public information on the inputs behind AI outputs, on limiting individual-level seller views by policy, on switching AI features off, or on the AI model provider — the privacy policy names only generic categories of third-party providers — so a system that rates employees stands without anything a works council could agree to. 1 9 3
The Skeptic
Dashboards, competency evaluations scored against benchmarks, and correlations of assessment scores to win rates are the product's own pitch, and a reporting API hands asset- and engagement-level data to the customer's BI. But a system that scores named employees gives no public statement on limiting individual-level views by role, on switching AI features off, or on which model provider processes the material — "secure, regulated AI" is a claim, not a disclosure. 1 9 10 1 9
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
This is where Showpad earns the renewal: out-of-the-box Salesforce, MS Dynamics and C4C connectors plus a documented path to any other CRM, buyer interactions auto-logged to the account with win-rate and deal-length context pulled back in, SSO, Marketo, Salesloft and Outreach, Microsoft and Google file editing in place, and a REST API with webhooks and a reporting export. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, Microsoft Teams, e-signature or CPQ connectors, configurable field mappings, bulk export of the content library itself, or a documented exit process for handing back content and history. 12 11 10 2
The Enablement Manager
Salesforce, Dynamics and C4C connectors out of the box plus a custom connector path, a documented REST API with webhooks, engagement and buyer signals written back to the CRM record, SSO, and 15+ DAM, email, Chrome, Marketo, Salesloft and Outreach connections fit the seller's day well. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, configurable field mappings beyond connector settings, bulk export of the content library itself, or any documented exit process handing back content and history when the contract ends. 11 12 11 10 2
The Product Marketer
Buyer interactions auto-log to the CRM record while win-rate and closed-won data flow back for a content-influence view, and the developer site documents a REST API with webhooks plus a reporting export API. Salesforce, Dynamics and C4C connectors, SSO, 15+ DAM platforms, Salesloft, Outreach and Marketo are named — but I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, configurable field mappings, or a bulk export and exit path for the content library and its history at contract end. 11 11 12 10
The CRM Integrator
Out-of-the-box Salesforce, Dynamics and C4C connectors with a documented path to custom ones, every buyer interaction auto-logged back to the right account, SSO in every plan, Microsoft and Google file handling, prebuilt connections into Copilot, and a developer portal with a REST API, webhooks and a reporting export — this is where the platform earns its keep in my stack. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, bulk export of the content library itself, or any documented exit process, which is why I hold short of the top. 2 11 12 11
The Data Protection Officer
Salesforce, MS Dynamics and C4C connectors with buyer interactions logged back to the account and CRM metrics pulled in are documented, alongside SSO through the customer's identity provider, Microsoft and Google file handling, Salesloft, Outreach and Marketo connections, and a REST API with webhooks plus reporting and export APIs. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, configurable field mappings, or a documented exit process handing back content, rooms and analytics at contract end. 11 12 11 10
The Skeptic
Salesforce, Dynamics and C4C out of the box, a documented path to custom CRM connectors, engagement logged back to every account, a REST API with webhooks, an MCP server for enterprise agents, and named connectors for Marketo, Salesloft and Outreach make the day-to-day fit broad. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, Microsoft Teams, e-signature or CPQ tools, or a documented exit that returns content with versions, rooms and analytics when the contract ends. 2 10 11 12 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
Provenance records a Belgian contracting entity and the pages carry a GDPR statement, privacy principles and a Data + Trust module, with the privacy policy stating personal data is not sold. Beyond that we found no public information on where content, buyer engagement data or AI and transcription processing are hosted, or on the subprocessors behind them — the policy names only categories such as technology and service providers and partners. 1 3 1
The Enablement Manager
A Belgian contracting entity is reported in the provenance information, but the captured pages state no hosting location, no named subprocessors with locations including the transcription and AI providers, and no data residency commitment — the GDPR principles page and the Data + Trust module do not close that gap. Until the chain behind recordings and documents is visible, I cannot assess whether a German deployment would be defensible. 1 3
The Product Marketer
A GDPR page, privacy principles and a "Data + Trust" module are published and the policy commits not to sell personal data, but the captured pages name no hosting location, no subprocessors including any transcription or AI providers, and no confirmed contracting jurisdiction. For a platform claiming safe, regulated AI, I found no public information on where recordings and documents are processed. 1 3
The CRM Integrator
A Ghent-headquartered company with a GDPR page, privacy principles, published legal documents and a no-sale-of-data statement is a start, and recipient categories are listed in the privacy policy. But hosting location, the contracting entity, ownership, and the names and locations of subprocessors — including whoever runs the transcription and AI — are unstated; I found no public information on any of them, so I cannot put this in front of a DPO as evidence. 1 3 1
The Data Protection Officer
A Belgian contracting entity and German-language GDPR and privacy-principles pages exist, and the privacy policy names recipient categories while stating that personal data is not sold. Beyond that we found no public information on where content, buyer engagement data or recordings are hosted, and no published subprocessor list with locations — the transcription and AI providers that recordings and documents would be passed to remain unnamed. 1 3 1
The Skeptic
A GDPR page and a "Data + Trust" module exist, and the privacy policy states that personal data is not sold — but we found no public information confirming the contracting entity on the vendor's own captured pages, on where content, buyer engagement data or AI processing are hosted, or on any named subprocessor, including any transcription or AI providers behind the pitch and role-play features. "Third-party technology and service providers" and "Showpad Partners" are categories, not locations. 1 3
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
The pricing page publishes an unusually detailed module map — Professional, Advanced and Expert each with named features, plus what every plan includes — so I know what I would have to buy. But beyond that feature map we found no public information on per-seat prices, seat types and which roles need one, minimum seat counts, implementation fees, the minimum term or VAT treatment — my finance team cannot compute an annual cost from public pages alone. 2 1
The Enablement Manager
The pricing page names three tiers with detailed feature lists down to which AI, certification and integration capabilities sit where, which is genuinely useful for bundling. But I found no public information on any price figure, seat types and which roles need one, minimum seats, implementation fees, minimum term or VAT treatment — there is no number here a buyer could build an invoice from. 2 1
The Product Marketer
The captured pricing page usefully lists which features sit in the Professional, Advanced and Expert tiers, so module bundling is visible — but no price figure appears anywhere captured: I found no public information on per-seat prices, seat types, minimum seats, platform or implementation fees, minimum term or VAT treatment. The invoice is a sales conversation. 2 1
The CRM Integrator
The pricing page publishes detailed tier composition — what Professional, Advanced and Expert each include, and what ships in every plan — which is more module clarity than most vendors give. But no price figure, seat type, minimum seat count, term or implementation fee appears anywhere; I found no public information on any of them, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page publishes tier names and which features sit in Professional, Advanced and Expert, including what every plan contains such as SSO and integrations, so module bundling is visible. But we found no public per-seat prices, seat types or minimum seat counts, and no implementation fees, minimum term or VAT treatment — no price figure appears on the captured pages, so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice. 2 1
The Skeptic
The pricing page maps three tiers feature by feature, down to which AI capabilities land in which tier, but no price appears anywhere captured — nor seat types, minimum seats, platform fees or term lengths. A buyer cannot begin to compute the annual invoice from public pages; every tier is a sales conversation. 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Showpad
Is Showpad European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Showpad as EU-Made.
Where does Showpad store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Showpad have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Showpad?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Modjo (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 Flowla (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Showpad alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 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. 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.
- 17 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
- 9 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
- 8 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
- 7 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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 subprocessors 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
- 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 (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Sales content management — found from sitemap www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Sales content management — found from sitemap www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Buyer engagement & digital sales rooms — found from sitemap www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding, training & coaching — found from sitemap www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Onboarding, training & coaching — found from sitemap www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Analytics, AI & seller monitoring — found from sitemap developer.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 CRM, workplace integrations & exit — found from sitemap www.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 CRM, workplace integrations & exit — found from sitemap developer.showpad.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →