Social Media Marketing
Brand24
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Brand24 · brand24.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.
Brand24 at a glance
- Vendor
- Brand24
- Headquarters
- Incorporated in United States source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention United States and Poland source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Brand24 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Brand24 is, on its own captured pages, a social listening and analytics product. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Brand24 is, on its own captured pages, a social listening and analytics product. Analytics and reporting is its strength at 6-7: mention analytics across monitored sources in one view, competitor benchmarking, and a branded PDF report builder with reorderable slides and shareable live links. Publishing sits at 0 (minimum 0, maximum 0) — the captured pages describe monitoring, and no public information on a composer, calendar or scheduling was found. Engagement scores sit at 3: replies to collected mentions via "engage" are shown, but no unified inbox, assignment or saved replies are documented, and post statistics are the values at the moment of collection, not live. The genuine split is collaboration and governance at 0-3: five of six judges scored 2-3, crediting several users per account from the LinkedIn setup note, while the Data Protection Officer scored 0, finding no public information on roles, approvals or audit trails. Sovereignty clusters at 3-4: a Polish processor, a data processing agreement and a published subprocessor list sit under a US controller, Brand24 Global Inc., with servers stated in the United States and Poland.
Speaks for it
- Mention analytics across monitored sources in one view — reach, sentiment, share of voice, competitor benchmarking — with analytics and reporting scored 6-7.
- Branded PDF report builder with selectable, reorderable slides, custom logo and fonts, plus shareable links with live data that need no Brand24 account.
- Monitoring spans 25 million sources — X, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, plus news, blogs, forums, podcasts, reviews, Reddit and Telegram — with platform coverage scored 5-6.
- Per-network limits are documented in the help centre, including LinkedIn collection restricted to organizational profiles where a user holds superadministrator rights, alongside articles on past Facebook and Instagram API changes.
- European elements are documented: Brand24 S.A. of Poland acts as processor and Article 27 EU representative, a data processing agreement is offered, and a subprocessor list states what each does and where.
Held against it
- Publishing scored 0 — the captured pages describe a listening and monitoring product, with no public information on a composer, calendar or scheduling.
- Engagement scored 3 — replies to collected mentions via 'engage' are the documented layer, with no public information on a unified inbox, assignment, saved replies or direct messages.
- Post statistics are the values visible at the moment a mention was collected, not live figures, per the vendor's own help centre.
- Collaboration and governance ranged 0-3, with no public information on role-based permissions, an approval step, client workspace separation or an audit trail.
- The controller named in the privacy policy is Brand24 Global Inc. of Daytona Beach, Florida, with servers stated in both the United States and Poland, and sentiment analysis sends text to OpenAI, Google and Anthropic via API.
Best for
- You need listening and measurement — reach, sentiment, share of voice and competitor benchmarking across 25 million monitored sources — rather than a publishing tool.
- Your team hands branded reports to clients — the PDF builder supports a custom logo, fonts and languages, and shareable live links without a login.
- You monitor conversation beyond the big social networks — news, blogs, forums, podcasts, reviews, Reddit and Telegram all sit in the source list.
Avoid if
- You need to plan, schedule and publish posts — publishing scored 0 because the captured pages show a listening tool of a different kind.
- Your team staffs a shared inbox with assignment, saved replies and per-person conversation history — engagement scored 3 with no public information on those.
- You require approval workflows, role-based permissions and an audit trail before anything ships — collaboration scores ranged 0-3.
- You need a European contracting entity — the controller is a US corporation, Brand24 Global Inc., with servers stated in the United States and Poland.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Publishing & calendar | 0 of 5 |
| Engagement & community inbox | 1.5 of 5 |
| Analytics & reporting | 3.5 of 5 |
| Approvals, roles & brand safety | 1 of 5 |
| Network coverage & API resilience | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
Publishing & calendar
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Scheduling across networks: per-network formatting, the calendar as a working surface, bulk operations, and what happens when a post fails.
0 — No publishing or scheduling; the product is a listening, analytics or inbox tool only.
3 — Posts scheduled to several networks from one composer, with a list or calendar of what is planned.
5 — A content calendar with scheduling across the main networks, per-network text and media variants, drafts, and post previews.
8 — Bulk upload or CSV import, queue or evergreen scheduling, best-time suggestions, link shortening with UTM tags, stories, reels or shorts where the API allows, and failure notifications with a retry.
10 — Publishing is dependable at volume: hundreds of scheduled items across many accounts without collision, best-time recommendations from the account's own history, and every failure surfaced with the platform error and a one-click recovery.
The Community Manager
Everything captured describes a listening and analytics product — monitoring 25 million sources for mentions, reach, sentiment and word clouds — and I found no public information on a composer, a calendar, or scheduling a post. Nothing in what I read tells me what happens when a 3am post fails, because these pages show a tool that hears the room rather than one that posts into it. 1 6
The Agency Lead
Every captured page describes monitoring — mentions, sentiment, reach, branded PDF reports — and we found no public information on a composer, scheduled posts, queues, or a content calendar. From where I sit, the evidence shows a listening and analytics tool, and publishing for my twelve brands is not part of what is documented. 1 6
The Brand Governance Officer
The captured pages establish a media-monitoring and analytics product — mention collection across social, news, blogs, forums and podcasts — and we found no public information on any composer, calendar or scheduling of posts. As a different kind of tool, it cannot carry a brand account's publishing pipeline at all, and that decides this outright. 1 4 6
The Analyst
Every captured page describes a listening product — mention collection across sources, sentiment, reach and influence analytics — and we found no public information on scheduling, a composer or a content calendar. The only outbound action shown is replying to collected mentions, which is engagement rather than planned publishing. 1 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages describe a listening and analytics product — mentions, reach, sentiment, real-time alerts — and the only publishing-adjacent action documented is clicking "engage" to reply to a collected mention. I found no public information on a composer, a calendar, scheduling or bulk operations; this is a monitoring tool of a different kind than a publishing suite. 1 4 6
The Skeptic
Everything captured describes a listening and monitoring product — mention analytics, sentiment, hashtag tracking, twenty-five million monitored sources — and I found no public information on a composer, scheduling, or a content calendar. The product is of a different kind, and that is stated on its own pages, not inferred by me. 1 6 4
Engagement & community inbox
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Comments, mentions and messages in one queue — the half of the job that is customer service wearing a marketing badge.
0 — No engagement features; comments and messages are handled only in each network's own app.
3 — Comments and mentions from connected networks shown in the tool, with replies sent from it.
5 — A unified inbox for comments and direct messages across the main networks, with replies, assignment to team members, and a read or done status.
8 — Saved replies, internal notes, SLA or response-time tracking, sentiment or priority flags, spam and hidden-comment handling, conversation history per person, and escalation to a helpdesk.
10 — The inbox is a service desk: every public and private interaction in one queue with ownership and response-time reporting, moderation rules that act automatically, and a per-person history spanning networks.
The Community Manager
Mentions from the monitored networks come together in one place, and clicking 'engage' lets you reply and join the conversation, with LinkedIn comments under your mentions collectable too. That is the basics done; I found no public information on direct messages, assignment to teammates, saved replies, or a read-and-done status — the queue with ownership and per-person history I live in is not on the pages I read. 4 5 10
The Agency Lead
Mentions from the monitored sources are collected in the tool and users can click 'engage' to reply and join the conversation, with likes, comments and shares shown per mention — but only the values visible when the mention was collected, not live figures. We found no public information on assignment to team members, saved replies, response-time tracking, or conversation history per person, so this is a light engagement layer rather than a service desk my client teams could staff. 4 5
The Brand Governance Officer
A user can click engage on collected mentions and reply into the conversation, and post statistics for likes, comments and shares are visible at the moment a mention was collected — replies in the tool at the most basic level. We found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment to team members, saved replies, direct messages or a done status, so this stays at the entry level. 4 5
The Analyst
Mentions and the comments beneath them are pulled into the tool from the monitored sources, and a user can click 'engage' on a mention to reply and join the conversation. We found no public information on a unified inbox with assignment, saved replies, read or done status, or per-person conversation history. 4 5 10
The Data Protection Officer
Replies to mentions can be sent from the tool via the engage button, collected LinkedIn comments can be gathered with the organization's mentions, and likes, comments and shares are shown for public posts as they were at collection. I found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment to team members, saved replies or conversation status, so the evidence reaches only basic in-tool responding. 4 5 10
The Skeptic
You can click engage on a mention and reply from the tool, and the LinkedIn integration can pull comments under your own mentions — comments and mentions shown, replies sent from one place. But I found no public information on a unified inbox, assignment to team members, saved replies, or message handling, and the vendor itself says engagement stats are the values at the moment a mention was collected, not live figures. 4 5 10
Analytics & reporting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Measurement across networks with different metrics and retention windows, plus the reporting an agency hands a client.
0 — No analytics at all; performance is read in each network's own app.
3 — Post and profile metrics (reach, engagement, followers) per connected network.
5 — Analytics across the connected networks in one view, reports exportable or scheduled as PDF or CSV, and post performance compared over a chosen period.
8 — Custom dashboards, white-label client reporting, competitor benchmarking, paid and organic combined where the API allows, UTM-based attribution into web analytics, metrics stored beyond the networks' own retention, and audience demographics over time.
10 — Reporting answers what worked and why: metrics normalised across networks with the differences documented rather than hidden, full historical retention independent of platform windows, and exports an agency can hand over unedited.
The Community Manager
Analytics is this product's spine: reach, engagement, sentiment, share of voice and competitor benchmarking in one view, plus a PDF builder where you pick and reorder slides, upload a logo, choose fonts and languages, and include demographics down to age, country, occupation and income. It sits between solid cross-network reporting and full client-reporting depth — period and project comparison plus branded, shareable reports are documented, but I found no public information on custom dashboards or UTM-based attribution into web analytics. 6 7 1
The Agency Lead
Mention analytics across social, news, blogs, forums, podcasts and reviews in one view, with competitor benchmarking, share of voice, a custom presence score, and audience demographics by age, gender, country, income and education. The PDF report builder is genuinely agency-ready — branded with your own logo, fonts and language, reorderable slides, project and period comparison, and shareable links with live data that need no login. We found no public information on combined paid and organic views, UTM-based attribution into web analytics, or metrics retention beyond the platforms' own windows. 7 6 1
The Brand Governance Officer
Measurement is the core of the product: mention volume, reach, engagement, sentiment, share of voice and demographics across all monitored sources in one view, competitor benchmarking, and a branded PDF report builder with selectable and reorderable slides, custom logo, fonts and languages, plus shareable live links. We found no public information on UTM-based attribution or paid-and-organic combined views, which is what keeps it below the top of the range. 1 6 7
The Analyst
Mention analytics run across all monitored sources in one view — reach, engagement, sentiment, share of voice — with branded PDF reports a client could be handed, email reports, competitor benchmarking, period comparison and demographics. As an analyst I have to dock it: engagement counts are the values visible at the moment a mention was collected rather than refreshed later, and we found no public information on retention of metrics beyond the platforms' own windows, documented normalisation of differently-defined network metrics, or UTM attribution into web analytics. 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Mention analytics across sources sit in one view, and the PDF report builder produces branded, shareable reports with selectable and reorderable slides, custom logo, period and project comparison, competitor benchmarking and audience demographics sections — close to what an agency hands a client. I found no public information on UTM attribution into web analytics or combined paid and organic measurement, which keeps this below the strongest level. 6 7 1
The Skeptic
Measurement across sources in one view is the product's core, with a branded PDF builder — your logo, fonts, aspect ratio — demographics, project and period comparison, competitor benchmarking, and shareable real-time report links. I stop short of the top because I found no public information on custom dashboards, UTM attribution into web analytics, or metric retention beyond the networks' own windows. 6 7 1
Approvals, roles & brand safety
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How a team of several people and an agency publish to a brand account without an accident — and who can be shown to have approved what.
0 — Single-user product; no team access at all.
3 — Several team members on one account with an admin and a member role.
5 — Team members with roles or permissions per social account, an approval step before posts go out, and comments or notes on drafts.
8 — Client or brand workspaces with strict separation, configurable multi-step approval chains including legal review, content locking after approval, and an audit trail of who changed and published what.
10 — Governance a regulated brand could pass an audit on: complete audit trail of edits, approvals and publications, enforced approval before anything reaches a network, granular permissions per account and action, and no shared credentials anywhere in the design.
The Community Manager
The only team signals I found are that a Brand24 account can hold several users, with the LinkedIn connection restricted to one holding superadministrator rights, and that each organization's AI data is isolated to it. I found no public information on roles or permissions per account, an approval step before anything ships, comments on drafts, or an audit trail of who changed and published what. 10 3
The Agency Lead
A help page refers to "a Brand24 user in a given account" and sources are added to each project separately, which hints at multi-user accounts and per-project structure. We found no public information on role-based permissions, an approval step before anything goes out, client or brand workspace separation, or an audit trail of who changed and published what — without approvals and separation I could not safely run twelve client brands through it. 10 7
The Brand Governance Officer
The single governance signal is integration privilege: LinkedIn must be connected by a Brand24 user holding superadministrator rights within the account, which implies several users per account with at least two privilege tiers. We found no public information on an approval step before anything goes out, comments on drafts, workspace separation or an audit trail of who did what — by my standard for a corporate account, that is the bare minimum and no more. 10 8
The Analyst
The one bearing fact implies several Brand24 users can sit in the same account — the LinkedIn connection must be run by another user in that account holding the LinkedIn superadministrator right. We found no public information on roles or permissions per account, an approval step before publication, comments on drafts, or an audit trail. 10
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
I found no public information on team roles, per-account permissions, an approval step before publication, or an audit trail of who changed what; the pages captured under this topic cover a listening worksheet and the legal document library, and neither mentions collaboration or approval features. 8 2
The Skeptic
The only team evidence is a LinkedIn setup note telling you to find another user in the account holding superadministrator privileges — several users per account, at least two privilege levels. I found no public information on an approval step before anything ships, comments on drafts, client workspaces, or an audit trail of who did what. 10 6
Network coverage & API resilience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which networks are supported through official APIs, how quickly the vendor follows platform changes, and what the customer keeps when a network breaks or leaves.
0 — Connects to no social network, or only through means the vendor states are unofficial.
3 — Two or three major networks connected.
5 — The main networks (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, X or Pinterest — most of them) connected, with the per-network capabilities or limitations documented in the help centre.
8 — Broad coverage including the newer networks (Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon or similar) through official APIs, a changelog or status page for integrations, advance notice of platform deprecations, and full export of the customer's own publishing and engagement archive.
10 — Platform dependency handled as an engineering commitment: official partner status where it exists, per-network capability documented and kept current, rapid response to API changes with the history to show it, and an archive that stays the customer's whatever a network does next.
The Community Manager
The source list covers the main networks — Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, X — and the help centre documents honest per-network limits, like LinkedIn collection being confined to organizational profiles where a user holds superadministrator rights, alongside articles on the Facebook and Instagram API changes that affected their data collection. I found no public information on coverage of the newer networks, a status page or changelog for integrations, or export of the publishing and engagement archive. 1 10 9
The Agency Lead
Monitoring covers the main networks — Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, X — plus Reddit, Telegram, podcasts, news, blogs, forums and review sites, and the help centre documents per-network limits such as LinkedIn collection restricted to organizational profiles where a superadministrator grants access. A help article also links the 2018 Facebook data-access restrictions and the Instagram legacy API shutdown as platform changes that affected collection, which shows the vendor tracks these shifts. We found no public information on newer networks such as Threads or Bluesky, an integrations changelog or status page, or export of the customer's archive. 1 10 9
The Brand Governance Officer
Coverage spans the main networks — X, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube — plus Reddit, Telegram, TripAdvisor and app-store sources, and per-network limits are documented in the help centre, such as LinkedIn collection restricted to administered organizational profiles and statistics fixed at collection time rather than live. The help centre also links the Facebook and Instagram API changes that shaped data collection. We found no public information on Threads, Bluesky or Mastodon, an integrations changelog or status page, or export of the customer's own archive. 1 9 10 5
The Analyst
Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube and X all appear in the monitored source list alongside news, blogs, forums, reviews and podcast coverage, and the help centre documents per-network limits — LinkedIn collection restricted to organisational profiles the user administers, plus past Facebook and Instagram API changes that affected collection. We found no public information on Threads, Bluesky or Mastodon, an integration changelog or status page, advance notice of deprecations, or export of the customer's own archive. 1 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Monitoring spans the main networks — Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, X — plus news, blogs, forums, reviews, Reddit and Telegram, and the help centre documents per-network limits such as LinkedIn collection being confined to organizational profiles where a user holds superadministrator rights. A help article also records past Facebook and Instagram API changes that affected data collection; I found no public information on the newer networks, advance deprecation notice, or export of the customer's archive. 1 9 10
The Skeptic
The homepage counts fifteen sources including Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, YouTube, and TikTok, though the integration mechanics are documented only for LinkedIn — page-level access gated on superadministrator rights, added per project. The help centre does own the history, linking the 2018 Facebook data restrictions and the 2020 Instagram legacy API shutdown as changes that hit their collection. But I found no public information on a changelog or status page for integrations, advance notice of deprecations, or export of the customer's own archive — and the pages do not say whether sources like Reddit or Telegram arrive through official APIs. 1 9 10 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the archive and the community conversations are processed, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Note that the networks themselves are non-EU by definition — this criterion judges the tool, not the platforms it talks to. Dimensions the sources do not establish are unknown, not non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU: a non-EU vendor and contracting entity with hosting stated outside the EU.
3 — One European element proven — an EU contracting entity or EU hosting stated — with the rest of the chain undocumented.
5 — An EU contracting entity and EU hosting both stated, and a data processing agreement offered.
8 — EU or DACH hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, a subprocessor list published with locations, and the handling of message content from the networks described with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA that squarely addresses the personal data arriving from the networks in comments and messages.
The Community Manager
The privacy policy states servers in the United States and Poland, names the Polish Brand24 S.A. as processor providing core infrastructure and data storage, publishes a sub-processor list saying what each does and where, and offers a Data Processing Agreement. The contracting entity and controller, though, is Brand24 Global Inc. of Daytona Beach, Florida, and the AI features lean on OpenAI, Google and Anthropic — real European elements that do not add up to a European chain. 3 2
The Agency Lead
The privacy policy states servers in the United States and Poland, a published sub-processor list showing what each provider does and where processing takes place, a data processing agreement, and standard contractual clauses for transfers, with the Polish Brand24 S.A. acting as processor and EU representative. The policy names Brand24 Global Inc. of Daytona Beach, Florida as the controller, however, and hosting sits on both sides of the Atlantic — a documented hybrid footprint, not a European chain end to end. 3 2
The Brand Governance Officer
The controller named in the privacy policy is Brand24 Global Inc. of Daytona Beach, Florida, with servers stated in both the United States and Poland, so the top of the chain is not European even though EU hosting exists. In its favour, Brand24 S.A. of Poland acts as processor and EU representative under GDPR Article 27, a data processing agreement is offered, and a sub-processor list describing what each does and where is published. A US contracting entity with European elements and partial documentation lands low for a buyer who must answer where their conversation archive is processed. 3 2
The Analyst
The contracting entity named throughout is the US corporation Brand24 Global Inc., while the Polish Brand24 S.A. is stated as processor supplying core infrastructure, data storage and support, with servers stated in the United States and Poland. A data processing agreement is offered, a sub-processors list describing what each does and where processing takes place is published, and standard contractual clauses are cited for transfers — several European elements proven, but the controller remains the US corporation, so it stops short of an EU contracting entity. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The controller and contracting entity is Brand24 Global Inc. of Daytona Beach, Florida, with servers stated in both the United States and Poland and the Polish Brand24 S.A. acting as processor and Article 27 representative, so there is a proven European element but not a European contracting entity or EU-only hosting. A data processing agreement is offered and a sub-processor list with processing locations is published, with transfers relying on standard contractual clauses — but the sentiment analysis sends text to OpenAI, Google and Anthropic via API, and I found no stated retention period for the archive of mentions and comments this tool processes. 3 2 1
The Skeptic
The entity at the head of the chain is Brand24 Global Inc. of Daytona Beach, Florida, and the privacy policy states servers in the United States as well as Poland. Real European elements are documented — the Polish affiliate Brand24 S.A. named as processor for core infrastructure and storage, a data processing agreement offered, and a published subprocessor list stating what each does and where — but the controller named in the policy is the American corporation, so the chain is not European at the top. 3 2 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a team can compute the real annual invoice for their account and user count — including the tier where approvals and the inbox begin — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price or a single tier with its price.
5 — Prices per tier public with the billing period and the included social accounts or users stated.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with account and user limits, feature boundaries, the cost of an extra account or seat, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of social accounts, users and client workspaces, with every add-on priced.
The Community Manager
The captured pages give me a free trial with no credit card and the plan names Pro, Business and Enterprise — and nothing I can build an invoice from, since I found no public information on a price for any tier, a billing period, or the cost of an extra account or seat. A team still needs the sales conversation before it can budget this. 6 7 1
The Agency Lead
The captured pages name Pro, Business and Enterprise tiers and a free trial with no credit card required, but we found no public information on any price figure, account or user limits, term length, or VAT treatment. As it stands I cannot compute the annual invoice for twelve client brands from anything captured, and PDF reports being gated to Pro and above is the only tier boundary shown. 7 6 1
The Brand Governance Officer
The pages name Pro, Business and Enterprise plans — PDF reports are gated to those tiers — and advertise a free trial with no credit card required, but we found no public price figures for any tier anywhere captured. A team cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from this, which is the basic test. 1 6 7
The Analyst
A free trial with no credit card is offered publicly and the tier names Pro, Business and Enterprise appear, but we found no public prices on the pages read: no price per tier, billing period, included accounts or users, extra-seat cost, minimum term or VAT treatment. No invoice figure can be computed from public pages. 1 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
The pages name three plans — Pro, Business and Enterprise — with PDF reports gated from Pro upward, and offer a free trial without a credit card. I found no price figures, billing periods, or seat and account limits in the captured material, so a team cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 6 7 1
The Skeptic
The pages I read name plan tiers — PDF reports appear in Pro, Business, and Enterprise — and offer a free trial with no credit card, but no price figure for any tier appears in the captured pages. A team cannot compute an annual invoice from what was captured, and the tier where any given feature begins is only partially visible. 7 6 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 6 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 | Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Brand24
Is Brand24 European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Brand24 is based. Its vendor, Brand24, is incorporated in United States, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Where does Brand24 store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026. The vendor’s pages mention United States and Poland as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Does Brand24 have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Brand24?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates Swat.io (3.5/5), HeyOrca (3.5/5) and Coosto (3.5/5) highest among the other 32 Social Media Marketing 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 Swat.io (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Brand24 alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 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 processing agreement, Hosting location. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. A Polish affiliate, Brand24 S.A., acts as processor and EU representative, but the controller named in the policy is the Delaware corporation.
- 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.
- 8 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
- 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap help.brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Engagement & community inbox — found from sitemap help.brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Analytics & reporting — found from sitemap help.brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Approvals, roles & brand safety — found from sitemap brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap help.brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Network coverage & API resilience — found from sitemap help.brand24.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →