Workflow Management
Axon Ivy
UK / wider Europe Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Axon Ivy AG · www.axonivy.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.
Axon Ivy at a glance
- Vendor
- Axon Ivy AG
- 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 Axon Ivy 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Axon Ivy is a process orchestration, automation and integration platform from Axon Ivy AG of Zug, Switzerland, offered self-hosted or cloud. 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
Axon Ivy is a process orchestration, automation and integration platform from Axon Ivy AG of Zug, Switzerland, offered self-hosted or cloud. Scoring is strongest on integrations and connectors, at 5-7: connectors for SAP, Oracle and Microsoft ERP, standard connectors for RPA providers UiPath and Blue Prism, a REST connector and OpenAPI support are documented. Process design follows at 5-6, on a low-code designer for business users and a developer designer as a VS Code extension. Lowest counted are run reliability at 1-2 and sovereignty at 0-3. Sovereignty is the only marked disagreement: the head of IT scored 3, the operations analyst 0, on the same gaps — execution and log storage locations, subprocessors, and where the LLM providers behind Smart Workflows and agentic orchestration run — and several rationales cite local server hosting as the only mitigation found. On run reliability, rationales found no public information on retries, error paths or a searchable execution history. Governance and audit sits at 4 throughout. No public prices appear, only a free trial, a downloadable test environment and a demo.
Speaks for it
- Named connectors for SAP, Oracle and Microsoft ERP systems, and standard connectors for UiPath, Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere and Nividous.
- Rule-based approval processes the responsible department can create, adapt and version itself, with automated reminders and escalation of overdue tasks.
- A low-code designer for business users and a developer designer available as a VS Code extension.
- Local server hosting plus a free downloadable test environment, so the engine can run on the customer's own servers.
- Deeply documented rights and roles: need-to-know permissions, segregation of duties, automated permission assignment and periodic recertification of IT permissions.
Held against it
- Run reliability scored 1-2, with no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting or a searchable execution history.
- Sovereignty scored 0-3, with no public information on execution and log storage locations, subprocessors, or the model providers behind Smart Workflows, LLM connectors and agentic orchestration.
- The open-standards and no-vendor-lock-in claims name no standard, and we found no public information on export formats for workflow definitions.
- We found no public information on how in-flight instances behave when a process version changes, or on a test mode before publishing.
- Governance and audit scored 4 with no named SSO protocol and no public information on credential storage or an audit trail of workflow changes.
Best for
- You need business-owned approval and ordering processes — forms, reminders, escalation — that the responsible department maintains itself.
- Your landscape runs SAP, Oracle or Microsoft ERP or RPA tools such as UiPath, and you need connectors plus REST, SOAP and OpenAPI reach.
- You must run the engine on your own servers and want to evaluate it first via the downloadable free test environment.
- You need strict permission governance — need-to-know, segregation of duties, recertification — to keep automation out of shadow IT.
Avoid if
- You need documented failure handling — retries, error paths, searchable execution history — before trusting unattended production runs.
- You must evidence execution location, subprocessors or LLM provider locations for a data-protection or sovereignty review.
- You need a documented export format for workflow definitions or a migration path between cloud and self-hosted deployment.
- You need to know how in-flight cases behave when a new process version is published, or a simulation mode before go-live.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 3 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 3 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 1 of 5 |
| Governance, credentials & audit trail | 2 of 5 |
| Hosting options & portability | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
Process design, forms & approvals
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Modelling the process people take part in: a visual designer or BPMN, forms, approval steps with roles and substitutes, deadlines and escalation, and versioning of a process that is already running — judged on whether a business owner can change a process without breaking the instances in flight.
0 — Linear trigger-action chains only; no human steps, no forms and no statement on approvals or roles.
3 — A visual builder with branching and a simple approval step, but approvers are named individuals rather than roles, there are no deadlines or escalation, and changing a process has no versioning.
5 — A visual designer with conditions and parallel paths, built-in forms, approval steps assigned to roles or groups, deadlines with reminders, and versions of a process kept with the running instances on their original version.
8 — BPMN 2.0 modelling or an equivalent documented notation, substitutes and escalation chains, multi-stage approvals with four-eyes rules, forms in German with validation and file upload, a task inbox for participants, and a test or simulation mode before publishing.
10 — The process is a governed asset: version history with diff and rollback, migration of running instances to a new version documented, process analytics on cycle time and bottlenecks per step, and the design documented well enough that a business team can maintain it without the vendor.
The Process Owner
Order forms, rule-based approval processes the responsible department can create and adapt itself, automated follow-up, reminder and escalation of overdue tasks, and versioning of processes are all documented, with a low-code designer for business users alongside developer tooling. For my world the gaps are real: we found no public information on substitutes when an approver is away, on four-eyes or multi-stage approval rules, or on what happens to the forty requests already in flight when a new process version is published. 4 5 9 1
The Integration Engineer
Rule-based approval processes with reminders and automated escalation of overdue tasks, forms and versioning maintained by the responsible department, adaptive ad hoc steps, and separate low-code and developer designers cover the essentials. We found no public information on approver substitutes, four-eyes rules, a simulation mode before publishing, or how running instances behave when a process changes. 4 5 9 1
The Operations Analyst
Two designers are evidenced — a low-code one for business users and a developer designer available as a VS Code extension — alongside quick form setup, rule-based approval processes created and maintained by the responsible department, automated follow-up, reminder and escalation of overdue tasks, and process versioning. That is a business owner's editable process with parallel and dynamic tasks on top. We found no public information on a documented notation such as BPMN, substitutes, four-eyes approvals, a simulation mode before publishing, or how running instances behave when a process version changes. 4 5 9 1
The Head of IT
Visual NEO and PRO designers, quick form setup, rule-based approvals created and maintained by the responsible department, and automated follow-up, reminders and escalation of overdue tasks meet my baseline, with parallel and ad hoc tasks on top. We found no public information on BPMN 2.0 or another documented notation, substitutes, four-eyes rules, a test or simulation mode before publishing, or whether running instances stay on their original version when a process changes. 4 5 9
The Data Protection Officer
Approval chains are modelled as rule-based processes the responsible department can create, adapt and version itself, with quick form setup, automated reminders and escalation of overdue tasks, parallel and dynamically re-orderable tasks, and manager clearances from mobile devices. We found no public information on BPMN or another documented notation, substitutes, four-eyes approvals, a test mode before publishing, or whether running instances keep their original process version after a change — and that last point matters, because every in-flight approval is a record of an employee's behaviour. 4 5 9 1
The Skeptic
Order forms, rule-based approval processes, reminders with automated escalation of overdue tasks, parallel dynamic tasks and versioning of processes by the responsible department are all stated, and running cases can gain ad-hoc steps — but I found no statement on whether approvers are roles or groups, what happens to in-flight instances when a version changes, or any test mode before publishing. A credible mid-level designer whose change governance is unevidenced. 4 5 9 1
Connectors, API & on-premise reach
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Reaching the systems a European company actually runs: maintained connectors judged by name rather than count, a generic HTTP and webhook step, custom connectors, and a way to reach systems behind the firewall without opening it.
0 — No connectors beyond email, and no API or webhook step.
3 — A large connector count on a logo wall, with no statement of which actions each supports or who maintains them, and no generic HTTP step.
5 — Named connectors with their triggers and actions documented, including Microsoft 365 and at least one ERP or accounting system common in DACH (e.g. SAP, DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics), a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, and a documented API to start and query workflows.
8 — Custom connectors buildable from an OpenAPI description or code, an on-premise agent or self-hosted runner reaching internal databases and file shares, SOAP and database steps, OAuth handled per connection, and connector maintenance ownership (vendor, partner or community) stated.
10 — Integration is engineered: a versioned public API with a deprecation policy, connector changelogs, rate limits per connector published, event-driven triggers rather than polling where the source allows it, and the vendor maintaining the German-market connectors (DATEV, SAP, ELO or d.velop) itself.
The Process Owner
Named connectors for SAP, Oracle and Microsoft, standard connectors for UiPath, Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere and Nividous, plus a REST element on the standard process palette, low-code SOAP web services and OpenAPI support give credible reach into a DACH landscape. We found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains them, inbound webhooks, or a documented API to start and query workflows. 6 7 1
The Integration Engineer
Connectors are named rather than counted — SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, RPA providers, the IDP document connector — with a REST connector on the standard element palette, low-code REST and SOAP services, OpenAPI support, and a self-hosted edition running where the internal systems live. We found no public information on inbound webhooks, a documented API to start and query workflows, per-connector action documentation and maintenance ownership, or a DATEV connector. 6 7 9 1
The Operations Analyst
Named connectors include SAP, Oracle and Microsoft ERP systems, standard connectors to UiPath, Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere, and connectivity to Azure, AWS and Google Cloud, with a REST connector on the standard element palette, SOAP web services and OpenAPI support; local server hosting and native legacy connectors give a route to systems behind the firewall. We found no public information on the triggers and actions each connector supports, inbound webhooks, DATEV, database steps, OAuth handling per connection, or who maintains each connector. 6 7 1
The Head of IT
SAP, Oracle and Microsoft ERP integration, REST and SOAP steps on the standard element palette, OpenAPI support with wizard-built service calls, and named RPA connectors give me the European-market reach I need, and local server hosting plus a downloadable test environment covers systems behind the firewall. We found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains them, OAuth handling per connection, inbound webhooks, or a versioned API with a deprecation policy. 6 7 1
The Data Protection Officer
SAP, Oracle and Microsoft ERP systems are named as native connectors alongside RPA vendors UiPath, Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere and Nividous, and a REST connector ships on the standard element palette together with SOAP, OpenAPI and ESB interfaces and wizard-driven service calls. We found no public information on each connector's triggers and actions, inbound webhooks, a documented API to start and query workflows, custom connector ownership, or connectors for DATEV and the German market specifically. 6 7 9 1
The Skeptic
Named connectors for SAP, Oracle and Microsoft ERP, standard connectors for RPA providers, a REST connector on the standard element palette, low-code REST and SOAP services, OpenAPI support, and a locally hosted edition that can sit behind the firewall. The pages do not document triggers and actions per connector, who maintains each one, inbound webhooks, or a platform API to start and query workflows — without those, this is a connector list, not engineered integration. 6 1 7
Execution, error handling & monitoring
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens when a step fails at 3 a.m.: retries, error paths, alerting, an execution history someone can search, limits on runtime and throughput, and a status page that admits incidents.
0 — Nothing stated about failed runs; an error stops the workflow silently.
3 — Failed runs are marked and an email is sent, but retries are manual, execution history is short or undocumented, and runtime and throughput limits are unstated.
5 — Automatic retries with configurable back-off, an error path or error workflow, a searchable execution log with input and output per step, failure alerts by email or chat, and runtime, payload and rate limits documented.
8 — Replay of a failed run from the failing step, idempotency guidance, queueing and concurrency controls, execution history retention stated per plan, monitoring exportable to the customer's own tools, and a public status page with incident history and an uptime commitment.
10 — Operations are designed for production: an SLA with service credits, horizontal scaling or high-availability setup documented for self-hosted installs, dead-letter handling, end-to-end tracing across workflows, and post-incident reports published.
The Process Owner
Transparent monitoring of approval processes and automated escalation of overdue tasks is stated, which is process visibility rather than failure handling. We found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting, a searchable execution history, runtime and throughput limits, or a public status page with incident history. 4 5 1
The Integration Engineer
What the pages show is transparent monitoring of approval processes and automated escalation of overdue tasks — business deadlines, not failed runs. We found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting, a searchable execution history, runtime and throughput limits, or a status page. 1 4 5
The Operations Analyst
Transparent monitoring of ordering and approval processes and automated escalation of overdue tasks are stated, and monitoring is named as a platform module — that is the whole of what is published on operations. We found no public information on retry behaviour, error paths, a searchable execution history with per-step input and output, runtime or throughput limits, or a status page with incident history. 4 5 1
The Head of IT
The captured pages describe transparent monitoring of approval processes and automated escalation of overdue tasks, but say nothing about what happens when a step itself fails. We found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting, searchable execution history with per-step input and output, runtime or throughput limits, or a public status page with incident history. 4 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
A monitoring module, transparent status monitoring of approval processes and automated escalation of overdue tasks are stated, but the captured pages say nothing about what happens when a step itself fails. We found no public information on retries or error paths, a searchable execution history and how long it keeps its copy of the payload, runtime and throughput limits, a public status page or an SLA. 1 4 5 1
The Skeptic
Transparent process monitoring and automated escalation of overdue tasks are stated, and monitoring is a named platform module — but on retries, error paths, failure alerting, searchable execution history, history retention, or runtime and throughput limits I found no public information at all. What happens when a step fails at 3 a.m. is simply not documented on these pages. 4 5 1
Governance, credentials & audit trail
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keeping automation from becoming shadow IT: roles and permissions, SSO, where connection credentials are stored, separate environments with controlled publishing, an audit trail of changes and approvals, and what the execution log retains of the payload. An approval record is also a record of employees' behaviour, so what the trail captures matters to a works council.
0 — Single-user accounts or one shared login; no roles, no audit log and no statement on credential storage.
3 — Admin and member roles and shared team folders, but credentials are visible to anyone who can edit a workflow, there is no audit log, and execution payloads are kept without a stated period.
5 — Role-based permissions per workflow or folder, SSO via SAML or OIDC, credentials stored encrypted and usable without being revealed, an audit log of workflow changes, and the retention period of execution data stated.
8 — Separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores supported, payload redaction or log-off per workflow, configurable execution data retention, and the audit trail exportable — with the fields it records about users described.
10 — Governance a works council and an auditor can both sign off: field-level masking of personal data in logs, delegated administration per department, a central inventory of every workflow and connection with its owner, certifications published (ISO 27001 or SOC 2), and documentation of what the platform records about individual users.
The Process Owner
The German rights-and-roles material is unusually concrete — need-to-know permissions, segregation of duties, periodic recertification of IT permissions, automated permission assignment and role migration — and the platform integrates with existing authentication systems. We found no public information on an audit trail of workflow changes, where connection credentials are stored and who can see them, separate environments with a publishing approval, or how long execution data with its payload copies is retained. 6 8
The Integration Engineer
The rights-and-roles pages evidence deep permission modelling — need-to-know, segregation of duties, recertification — and the platform integrates with existing authentication systems. We found no public information on the SSO protocol, credential storage, an audit log of workflow changes, or execution payload retention; the privacy policy's stated periods cover website, applicant and contract data, not execution data. 2 6 8
The Operations Analyst
Rights and roles management is well evidenced — need-to-know permissions, segregation of duties, automated permission assignment and periodic recertification — with integration into existing authentication systems, though no protocol such as SAML or OIDC is named. The captured privacy policy describes logging of IP address and action time for user accounts on the vendor's own online services, but says nothing about workflow executions. We found no public information on an audit log of workflow changes, where connection credentials are stored, the retention of execution payloads, or separate environments with a publishing approval. 2 6 8
The Head of IT
Need-to-know permission management, segregation of duties, regular recertification of IT permissions, automated permission assignment and integration with existing authentication systems cover the role side of keeping automation out of shadow IT. We found no public information on SSO via SAML or OIDC, where connection credentials are stored, an audit trail of workflow changes, separate test and production environments with a publishing approval, or the retention period of execution data on the platform itself. 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
Rights and roles management is documented in real depth — need-to-know permissions, segregation of duties, regular recertification of IT permissions, automated permission assignment and role migration — and the platform integrates with existing authentication systems. We found no public information on an audit trail of changes and approvals and what it records about individual users, where connection credentials are stored, SSO via SAML or OIDC, separate environments with a publishing approval, or retention of execution payloads; the published retention periods govern the vendor's own website and applicant data, not workflow runs. 2 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Role- and rights-based access control with need-to-know, segregation of duties and recertification is described, and integration with existing authentication systems is claimed — but that is permission management, not audit: no SSO protocol is named, and I found no public information on where connection credentials are stored, on an audit log of workflow changes, on separate environments with publishing approval, or on what execution logs retain of the payload. 8 6
Hosting options & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the engine runs and whether the workflows can leave: cloud regions, self-hosted or on-premise editions, the licence of the engine, and export of workflow definitions in a format another tool or a later version can read.
0 — Cloud-only with no stated region, and no export of workflow definitions.
3 — Cloud-only with a region named, and an export that produces a proprietary file only the same product can import.
5 — An EU cloud region selectable, workflow definitions exportable as documented JSON or BPMN 2.0, and an API to read definitions and execution history for backup.
8 — A self-hosted or on-premise edition with its system requirements documented, workflow definitions versionable in Git, the engine's licence published, and a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted in both directions.
10 — The customer owns its automation: an open-source or source-available engine, definitions in an open standard executable elsewhere, air-gapped installation supported, and a stated exit process that hands back definitions, credentials metadata and execution history in documented formats.
The Process Owner
Local server hosting for compliance and a downloadable free test environment mean the engine can run on our own servers, and the vendor claims open standards and "no vendor lock-in" with full control over code and architecture. We found no public information on an export format for process definitions another tool could read, the engine's licence, documented system requirements, or a migration path between cloud and self-hosting in either direction. 6 7 1
The Integration Engineer
Local server hosting is offered, a free test environment is downloadable, and the vendor claims open standards with no vendor lock-in while keeping code in the customer's toolchain. We found no public information on system requirements, the engine's licence, an export format for workflow definitions, Git versioning, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted. 6 7 1
The Operations Analyst
Local server hosting options and a downloadable free test environment evidence an on-premise route, and open standards are claimed under a stated no-vendor-lock-in position with development in a VS Code extension. We found no public information on cloud regions, an export format for workflow definitions, the engine's licence, system requirements, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted in either direction. 6 7 1
The Head of IT
Local server hosting, a free downloadable test environment, an explicit no-vendor-lock-in statement on open standards and a long-term support release give me the self-hosted exit route I insist on. We found no public information on the engine's licence terms, system requirements for self-hosted installs, export of workflow definitions in BPMN or documented JSON, a selectable cloud region, versioning of definitions in Git, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted. 6 7 1
The Data Protection Officer
Flexible local server hosting is offered and a free test environment can be downloaded, so the engine and its logs can run on the customer's own servers. We found no public information on system requirements for self-hosting, the engine's licence, export of workflow definitions in a documented format such as JSON or BPMN, versioning in Git, a migration path between cloud and self-hosted, or selectable cloud regions — the open-standards claim is not tied to any named format. 6 7 1
The Skeptic
Local server hosting and a freely downloadable test environment put the engine on customer hardware, and a developer designer exists as a VS Code extension — but 'open standards, no vendor lock-in' names no standard, and I found no public information on export formats for workflow definitions, the engine's licence, selectable cloud regions, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosting. 7 6 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where workflows execute and where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI model providers behind any AI steps. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. A self-hosted edition counts only for the data that actually stays on the customer's servers.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, execution location unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU region offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI steps send data to model providers of unstated location.
5 — EU execution and log storage as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI steps, support access, telemetry — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU execution on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations including AI providers, a DPA covering execution payloads, and a self-hosted option that sends no workflow data to the vendor.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, AI steps runnable on European or self-hosted models, certification published, and a self-hosted edition that works without any call home.
The Process Owner
The captured pages state neither where workflows and their logs execute nor who the subprocessors are — the privacy policy says only that "one or more web hosting providers" are used — and although AI agents and LLM connectors are marketed, no model provider or its location is named. Local hosting is offered, but we found no public information confirming that a self-hosted install sends no workflow data to the vendor. 2 7 1
The Integration Engineer
The contracting entity is Swiss — non-EU — and the captured pages state no execution location, name no subprocessors, and give no location for the model providers behind the advertised LLM connectors and agentic orchestration. The self-hosted option keeps some data on the customer's own servers, and that is the only mitigation we found. 1 2 7 1
The Operations Analyst
The captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction, and we found no public information on where workflows and their logs execute or are stored, nor any subprocessor list — the privacy policy names only categories such as payment institutions, IT service providers and embedded content providers. AI steps are built on LLM connectors and agentic orchestration with no stated location of the model providers receiving that data. 1 2 1
The Head of IT
The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, execution and log storage location is unstated, the subprocessor list is absent, and the Smart Workflows, LLM connectors and agentic orchestration name no model provider or its location. A local hosting option is offered, but we found no public information confirming it sends no workflow data to the vendor. 1 7 1
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor is Axon Ivy AG of Zug, Switzerland, but we found no public information on where cloud workflows execute, where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, or who the subprocessors are — including which LLM providers sit behind the Smart Workflows, LLM connectors and agentic orchestration. The local server hosting option keeps data on the customer's own servers; for the cloud path we found no public information on a DPA covering execution payloads, the location of AI model providers, or certifications. 1 2 7 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages (registration in Zug, Switzerland — outside the EU), execution and log storage locations are unstated, and there is no subprocessor list, with no statement on where the LLM providers behind Smart Workflows, Agentic Orchestration and the deep-learning document extraction actually run. Local server hosting is offered, but nothing states that a self-hosted install sends no workflow data back to the vendor. 1 1 7
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the monthly cost of their own processes from public pages alone: what the billing unit is (task, operation, execution, run, user or flow) and what counts as one, the allowance per tier, overage prices, and the cost of premium connectors, self-hosting, environments and AI steps.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the billing unit is undefined or what counts as one task or execution is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the billing unit defined and the monthly allowance given, but at least one commonly needed piece (overage, premium connectors, extra environments, self-hosted licence, AI steps) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its unit, allowance and limits, overage priced per unit, premium connector and add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the monthly cost derivable for a given number of workflows, runs and steps per run, with a published calculator or worked examples, every add-on and overage on a public page, and the effect of loops and retries on the count explained.
The Process Owner
Public pages offer a free trial, a downloadable test environment and a demo request, and that is the whole of it: we found no public prices, tiers, billing unit, allowance or overage on any captured page. I could not begin to compute a monthly invoice from what is published; every commercial question is a sales conversation. 1 6 1
The Integration Engineer
The only public commercial statements are a free trial and a personalised demo; no tier, billing unit, allowance or overage price appears on the captured pages. A buyer cannot compute any monthly cost from public information. 1 1
The Operations Analyst
A free trial, a personalised demo and a downloadable test environment are offered, but we found no public prices at all — no tiers, no billing unit and no statement of what counts as one, no allowance, overage, self-hosting licence or AI step price. Computing a monthly invoice for a given set of processes is impossible from the captured pages; every figure is a sales conversation. 1 6 1
The Head of IT
The captured pages offer a demo request and a free trial and nothing else: we found no public prices, no tiers, no billing unit or allowance, and no cost for hosting, environments or AI steps. A buyer cannot compute any monthly cost from these pages alone. 1 1
The Data Protection Officer
A free trial, a downloadable test environment and a personalised demo are the only commercial offers visible on the captured pages. We found no public prices, tiers, billing unit, allowances, overage or self-hosting licence terms, so the monthly cost of a buyer's own processes cannot be derived from what is published. 1 6 1
The Skeptic
No prices appear anywhere on the captured pages: no tiers, no billing unit, no allowance, no overage, and no statement on what a self-hosted licence costs — the only commercial gestures are a free trial, a downloadable test environment and a demo request. A buyer cannot compute any monthly cost from these pages; every real figure is a sales conversation. 1 1 6
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 Axon Ivy
Is Axon Ivy European?
Yes, though not from the EU. whats-best.ai classifies Axon Ivy as UK / wider Europe.
Where does Axon Ivy store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Axon Ivy have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Axon Ivy?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Tray.ai (3/5), n8n (3/5) and Camunda (2.5/5) highest among the other 16 Workflow Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is n8n (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Axon Ivy 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.
- 16 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 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 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap www.axonivy.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →