Workflow Management
Frends
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Frends Technology Oy · frends.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.
Frends at a glance
- Vendor
- Frends Technology Oy
- 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 Frends 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Frends, a hybrid integration and process automation platform from Frends Technology Oy, scores highest as an integration engine: integrations and connectors at 7-8 and hosting and portability clustered at 7, resting on self-hosted agents, an outbound-only agent connection requiring no inbound firewall ports, an on-premises control plane and an air-gapped deployment with zero public-internet connection. 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
Frends, a hybrid integration and process automation platform from Frends Technology Oy, scores highest as an integration engine: integrations and connectors at 7-8 and hosting and portability clustered at 7, resting on self-hosted agents, an outbound-only agent connection requiring no inbound firewall ports, an on-premises control plane and an air-gapped deployment with zero public-internet connection. Governance and audit follows at 6-7 on granular allow-and-deny roles and an exportable audit trail with a 60-day default; run reliability spans 4-6, credited for layered error handling but with no public information on automatic retries, replay or a status page. The weakest legs are pricing transparency at 2-3 — no tier prices, allowances, overage rates or self-hosting licence figures are public, so the monthly invoice is a sales conversation — and sovereignty at 3-5, where EU-exclusive hosting and Irish processing sit alongside a privacy policy permitting processing where partners and third-party providers maintain facilities. Process design splits widest, 2 to 5, over the weight of missing public information on forms, approval steps with roles, deadlines and a task inbox against a documented BPMN 2.0 designer.
Speaks for it
- On-premises agents connect outbound-only, so reaching internal databases and legacy systems opens no inbound firewall port.
- The platform runs as EU cloud, self-hosted agents on Windows, Linux or containers, an on-premises control plane, or a fully air-gapped deployment with zero connection to the public internet.
- Named tasks cover SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Oracle for EDI-to-ERP, and the task library is open source in C#, importable as NuGet packages.
- Role-based access control offers allow and deny rules per action, tag and environment, with multiple roles per user.
- The audit trail records username, action and UTC timestamp with a stated 60-day default retention, exportable as JSON via the platform API.
Held against it
- Beyond a 30-day trial, no tier prices, monthly allowances, overage rates, AI credit prices or self-hosting licence figures appear publicly, so the monthly invoice is a sales conversation.
- The captured pages give different signals on where processing happens: the cloud is stated as hosted exclusively within the EU with processing in Ireland, while the privacy policy permits processing where partners, affiliates and third-party providers maintain facilities.
- We found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles or substitutes, deadlines, escalation or a task inbox for participants.
- We found no public information on automatic retries, replay from a failing step or a public status page, and the terms supply the platform "as is" without guaranteed SLOs unless the ordered tier provides them.
- We found no public information on a subprocessor list or a data-processing agreement covering execution payloads, and the AI tasks on offer are Google services with no stated location.
Best for
- You need hybrid integration that reaches on-premises ERPs and databases without opening inbound firewall ports.
- Your organization must run execution fully on-premises or air-gapped, optionally with local AI models.
- You are migrating legacy platforms such as BizTalk or SAP PI/PO onto BPMN-designed processes with API-based deployment.
- You answer to auditors or a works council and need role-scoped access plus an exportable audit trail with stated retention.
Avoid if
- You need an approval-centric workflow product with forms, approvers by role, substitutes, deadlines and a participant task inbox.
- You must compute the monthly invoice from public figures before engaging sales.
- You require guaranteed service levels up front — the terms supply the platform on an as-is basis unless SLOs are agreed per ordered tier.
- Your data-protection review cannot accept AI tasks routing to Google services or a privacy policy permitting processing wherever partners and third-party providers maintain facilities, unless you self-host or run air-gapped with your own models.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 2 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 3.5 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 2.5 of 5 |
| Governance, credentials & audit trail | 3 of 5 |
| Hosting options & portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 of 5 |
Process design, forms & approvals
panel disagrees
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
The visual BPMN designer with decisions, loops and subprocess calls is real, and older process versions can be redeployed while a design is promoted through environments without redesigning it — that part reassures me about requests already in flight. But I found no public information on approval steps, approvers by role, substitutes, deadlines, escalation or participant forms and task inbox; there is nothing here for the person who has to release an invoice. 1 5 9 13
The Integration Engineer
Frends models processes in a documented BPMN 2.0 canvas with decisions, loops, subprocess calls and branching error logic, and older process versions remain deployable. But I found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles or substitutes, deadlines and escalation, or a task inbox for participants — this reads as an integration engine wearing BPMN, not a human-approval workflow. 5 9 13 1
The Operations Analyst
The BPMN 2.0 canvas with decisions, loops, subprocess calls and multiple trigger types is a real process designer, and older process versions remain deployable alongside promotion across environments. But everything human is unevidenced — we found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles or substitutes, deadlines and escalation, or a task inbox — so a business owner designing an approval cannot see it supported. 1 5 9 13
The Head of IT
BPMN 2.0 is the documented design surface, with conditions, decisions, loops and subprocess calls, environment promotion, and the ability to deploy an older process version to an agent group. But this is an integration canvas: we found no public information on human approval steps with roles or substitutes, forms, deadlines, escalation or a task inbox for participants, so a business owner gets flow logic here rather than governed approvals. 5 9 13
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages document a strong flow designer — BPMN 2.0, conditions, loops, subprocess calls, branching and per-process error scopes — but I read every workflow as a chain of human transfers too, and here we found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles or substitutes, deadlines, escalation or a task inbox for participants. An approval trail that records no approval steps is of little use when the works council asks what the platform knows about employees. 5 9 8
The Skeptic
A BPMN 2.0 interface with decisions, loops, subprocess calls and environment promotion is documented, and an older version of a Process can be deployed — but we found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles or substitutes, deadlines, escalation or a task inbox, so the human side of a process is unrepresented on the captured pages. 5 9 13 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 tasks for SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Oracle plus generic HTTP, SFTP and AMQP steps, and an on-premise agent that needs only an outbound connection so I never open the firewall to reach our internal ERP — that is exactly the reach a Mittelstand company needs. Custom tasks are buildable in open-source C# and imported as NuGet packages, though I found no public information on DATEV-class connectors, SOAP, per-connection OAuth handling, connector changelogs or rate limits. 1 6 7 12
The Integration Engineer
The agent story is exactly what I want to wire to a shop: an on-premise agent that connects outbound-only over Azure Service Bus, so the SQL server is reached without opening an inbound firewall port, running on Windows, Linux or containers. Connectors are named tasks — SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Oracle alongside the SaaS usuals — open source in C#, importable as NuGet packages and extendable with custom tasks, though I found no per-connector action documentation, no SOAP or database step, and no statement of who maintains each connector. 7 6 1 9
The Operations Analyst
SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Oracle are named for EDI-to-ERP, the connector list runs from Salesforce to Databricks alongside HTTP, FTP, SFTP and GraphQL steps and inbound HTTP triggers, custom connectors are buildable in C# with the existing ones open source, and the on-premises agent reaches internal databases over an outbound-only connection without opening firewall ports. We found no public information on SOAP steps, per-connection OAuth handling, or connector maintenance ownership beyond the open-source tasks. 1 6 7 9
The Head of IT
Connectors are named Tasks in open-source C# importable as NuGet packages, SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Oracle are reached for EDI-to-ERP, and the on-premises agent connects outbound-only over Azure Service Bus with no inbound firewall ports — exactly the hybrid reach I want, with the platform API documented for deployments. We found no public information on SOAP or database steps, OAuth handled per connection, or stated maintenance ownership per connector. 6 7 1 13
The Data Protection Officer
Named connectors come with named systems (Salesforce, SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, Oracle for EDI-to-ERP), the protocols list covers HTTP, FTP, SFTP, AMQP and GraphQL, custom tasks are open source in C# via NuGet, and the on-premises agent reaches internal databases with outbound-only connectivity so no inbound firewall port is opened. We found no public information on DATEV or other German-market connectors maintained by the vendor, on SOAP or direct database steps, on OAuth handling per connection, or on per-connector rate limits and changelogs. 6 1 7 13
The Skeptic
Connectors are named (SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, Oracle among the ERPs), custom Tasks are open-source C# imported via NuGet, and the on-premises agent reaches internal databases over an outbound-only connection with no inbound firewall ports — a genuinely engineered firewall story. We found no public information on maintenance ownership per connector, per-connector rate limits, DATEV or other German-market connectors, or SOAP steps. 6 7 1 13
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
Error handling is properly layered — a try-catch scope per process, an error subprocess for unhandled failures with alerting, and environment-level monitoring rules that flag volume anomalies — and each instance shows success, duration and per-step values. But I found no public information on automatic retries or replay of a failed run from the failing step, no status page, and the terms supply the platform on an as-is basis without guaranteed SLOs unless ordered by tier. 4 8 9 12
The Integration Engineer
Error handling is genuinely layered — a try/catch scope in every process, an error subprocess for the unhandled ones, and environment-level monitoring rules that alert by email or spawn a process on volume anomalies — and process instances show per-element values depending on logging settings. But I found no public information on automatic retries with back-off, replay of a failed run from the failing step, execution history retention, or a public status page, and the terms supply the platform on an as-is basis without guaranteed service levels unless the ordered tier provides them. 8 9 12 4
The Operations Analyst
Error handling is layered — a try-catch scope inside each process, an error subprocess for anything unhandled, and environment-level monitoring rules that detect volume anomalies and can send an email or start a whole process to handle the condition — and process instances show duration, success and per-step values. But we found no public information on automatic retries with back-off, replay from a failing step, execution history retention, or published runtime and throughput limits, and the platform is supplied as is without guaranteed service levels unless agreed per tier. 2 4 8 9 12
The Head of IT
Error handling is genuinely layered — a Catch scope per process, an Error Subprocess that can alert, write to a database or archive on unhandled failures, and environment-level Monitoring Rules triggering email or a full process — with process instances recording per-step results. But we found no public information on automatic retries, replay from a failing step, a public status page or runtime limits, and the terms supply the platform "as is" and "as available" without any guaranteed SLOs, so I would not bank my 3 a.m. production on promises alone. 8 9 4
The Data Protection Officer
Error handling is genuinely architected: a catch scope per process, an error subprocess that takes over unhandled errors for alerting, archiving or database writes, environment-level monitoring rules for volume anomalies with email alerts, and process instances showing success, duration and per-element values depending on logging settings — with agents continuing to run if the user interface is down. But for the 3 a.m. question we found no public information on automatic retries with back-off, replay of a failed run from the failing step, execution-history retention per plan, or a public status page with incident history. 8 9 12
The Skeptic
Error handling is layered and documented: Catch scopes, an Error Subprocess for unhandled errors, environment-level monitoring rules that can fire email or a whole Process, and per-instance success, duration and logged element values. We found no public information on automatic retries, execution history retention, runtime or throughput limits, or a status page — and the terms supply the Platform on an "as is" and "as available" basis without any guaranteed SLOs unless agreed per tier. 8 9 4 12
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 role model is granular — allow and deny per action, per tag, per environment, with multiple roles per user — and the audit trail records who did what and when in UTC, is exportable via the API, and has a stated retention of 60 days with backups; a works council can read that. I found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores or field-level payload masking, and credentials are covered only by an encrypted-variable system. 7 10 11 13
The Integration Engineer
Role-based access control is granular — allow and deny rules down to actions, tags and environments, with multiple roles per user — and the audit trail is queryable through a read-only API recording username, action and UTC timestamp for deployments, changes and user management, with a stated 60-day default retention. Credentials sit in an encrypted variable system usable without being revealed, but I found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores or payload redaction, and no certifications are published in what I can see. 11 10 7 13
The Operations Analyst
Role-based access control is genuinely granular, with allow and deny rules down to individual tags and environments and combinable roles, and the audit trail is exportable as JSON through the platform API recording username, action and UTC timestamp, with stated retention policies including a sixty-day default for most audit logs. We found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, payload redaction or certifications. 2 7 10 11 13
The Head of IT
Granular role-based access control with allow and deny rules scoped per environment and tag, unlimited environments, credentials held in encrypted variables with an isSecret flag, and an exportable audit trail recording username, action and UTC timestamp with stated retention (60 days by default, configuration changes until explicitly deleted) — most of my checklist. We found no public information on SSO via SAML or OIDC, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, a publishing approval gate, or ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certification. 11 7 13 10 2
The Data Protection Officer
This is the strongest area: role-based access with allow and deny rules scoped by process tag and environment, and an audit trail recording username, action, UTC timestamp and affected resources for deployments, modifications, activation changes, role changes and user management — exportable as JSON via the platform API, with retention stated at a 60-day default and configuration changes kept until explicitly deleted, which is exactly what a works council will ask the trail to show. Secrets live in an encrypted variable system, but we found no public information on SSO via SAML or OIDC, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, or field-level masking of payload data — and per-element values appear in instance logs depending on logging settings, with no stated retention period for those execution payload copies. 10 11 7 9
The Skeptic
Granular role-based access control with allow and deny rules per environment and tag, encrypted credential variables, and a real audit trail API recording username, action and UTC timestamp with stated retention (60 days by default, configuration changes kept until deleted). We found no public information on SSO via SAML or OIDC, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, payload redaction, or published certifications such as ISO 27001. 11 7 10 2
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
Self-hosting goes all the way — agents on Windows, Linux or containers, the control plane deployable on-premises, and an air-gapped installation with zero internet connection, with the engine licence published in the terms as object code. Leaving, though, is thinner: the vendor says you can export anytime, but I found no public information on the export format for definitions, on Git versioning, or on a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted. 2 7 12 4
The Integration Engineer
Self-hosting is real and documented: agents on your own Windows, Linux or container infrastructure, an entirely on-premise control plane, and a fully air-gapped deployment with zero connection to the public internet. Portability is thinner — export is claimed with BPMN 2.0 as the interface, but I found no published engine licence, no evidence of definitions versioned in Git, and no documented two-way migration path between cloud and self-hosted. 7 12 2 5 4
The Operations Analyst
Deployment is unusually flexible: an EU-only cloud with selectable hosting location per tier, self-hosted agents on Windows, Linux or containers, a fully on-premises control plane, and an air-gapped option with zero public internet connection, with the vendor stating you can export your integrations anytime. We found no public information on Git versioning of definitions or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted, and the on-premises edition is delivered as machine-executable object code without source access. 2 7 12 13 4
The Head of IT
The engine runs where I need it: EU cloud, self-hosted agents on Windows, Linux or Kubernetes, and a documented air-gapped deployment of the entire platform including the control plane with zero public internet connection, under publicly available licence terms. The exit is the weak leg — the pricing page says you always own your integrations and can export anytime, but we found no public information on an export format such as BPMN 2.0 or documented JSON, and the on-premises edition ships as machine-executable object code under a non-transferable licence granted only during the term. 7 12 1 2 4 4
The Data Protection Officer
Self-hosted agents on Windows, Linux and containers, a full on-premises control plane, an air-gapped deployment with zero connection to the public internet, and cloud hosting stated as exclusively within the EU with geography selectable by tier give the customer real control over where execution and its payload copies live. On leaving, however, the export claim is stated without a documented format, and we found no public information on Git versioning of definitions or an exit process handing back definitions, credential metadata and execution history — with the on-premises edition delivered as machine-executable object code without access to source code, so the engine is not one the customer can take elsewhere. 7 12 13 4 2
The Skeptic
Cloud hosted exclusively in the EU, self-hosted agents on Windows, Linux or containers, and a fully air-gapped deployment with zero public-internet connection are all documented. Export is claimed — "you always own your integrations and can export anytime" — but we found no public information on the export format or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted, and the on-premises platform is delivered as machine-executable object code without access to source code. 7 12 2 4 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
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 cloud is stated to be hosted exclusively within the EU with processing in Ireland, agents process data locally, and local AI models are possible for an air-gapped deployment — a genuinely sovereign option for the data that stays on our servers. But I found no public information on the subcontractor list, and the privacy policy permits processing wherever partners and third-party providers maintain facilities; the contracting entity's details were not confirmed on the captured pages. 1 7 12 3
The Integration Engineer
The cloud platform is claimed to be hosted exclusively within the EU and the contracting party is a Finnish company, but the privacy policy says personal data is processed in Ireland or where partners, affiliates and third-party providers maintain facilities — the captured pages give different signals for where processing happens. I found no public information on the subprocessor list, ownership, or the location behind the Google speech and vision services offered as AI tasks; the air-gapped self-hosted deployment is the only part of the chain that provably keeps data in the customer's own network. 7 3 6 1 4
The Operations Analyst
The cloud platform is stated to be hosted exclusively within the EU and personal data to be processed in Ireland, though the same policy also allows storage wherever partners and third-party providers maintain facilities. We found no public information on the subprocessor list or the location of the AI model providers behind AI tasks such as the Google services, although running your own AI models is offered, and the self-hosted and air-gapped options cover only the data that stays on your own servers. 2 6 7 3
The Head of IT
The cloud platform is hosted exclusively in the EU with processing in Ireland, and the self-hosted and air-gapped options keep execution and data on the customer's own network, optionally with local AI models. But the privacy policy reserves storage "where we or our partners, affiliates and third-party providers maintain facilities", we found no public information on a subprocessor list or the contracting entity's jurisdiction, and the default AI tasks are Google services — a non-European chain unless the customer brings its own models. 7 3 6 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The cloud platform is stated to be hosted exclusively within the EU with personal information stored and processed in Ireland, and the air-gapped edition with local AI models keeps execution data in the customer's own network — but the privacy policy then reserves processing "where we or our partners, affiliates and third-party providers maintain facilities", which is a transfer reservation I cannot map. The AI tasks on offer are Google services with no stated location, agents and audit-log backups run on Azure infrastructure, and we found no public information on a published subprocessor list, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction from the vendor's own captured pages, or on a data-processing agreement covering execution payloads. 7 3 6 10 12
The Skeptic
EU-exclusive hosting, an on-premises control plane and local AI models are stated, but the captured privacy policy says processing occurs in Ireland "or where we or our partners, affiliates and third-party providers maintain facilities". We found no public information on a subprocessor list, the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the vendor's own pages, or a DPA covering execution payloads, while named AI Tasks route to Google services — with the option to substitute your own models as the stated safeguard. 7 3 6 1
Pricing transparency
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
The billing unit is defined precisely — one complete run of a process or API call, with subprocesses not counted separately — and exceeding a tier is soft rather than blocking. But no tier price, monthly allowance, overage rate or self-hosting licence figure appears on the captured pages, so I cannot compute what a month of our approval processes would cost. 2
The Integration Engineer
The billing unit is defined unusually precisely — one execution is one complete run of a process or API call, subprocesses do not count separately — and the monthly process counting rule is spelled out. But no public prices appear for tiers, allowances, overage, premium connectors or self-hosting licences on the captured pricing page, so the monthly invoice remains an Order Form conversation, with service levels and geographic hosting also gated on the ordered tier. 2 4 12
The Operations Analyst
The billing unit is defined with unusual precision — an execution is one complete run of a process or API call, sub-processes do not count separately, unique processes are counted monthly outside the development environment, and the limit is soft so overruns are not blocked. But we found no public information on any price figure — tier prices, allowances, overage rates, AI credit costs or a self-hosting licence — so the monthly invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 2
The Head of IT
The billing unit is unusually well defined — an execution is one complete run of a process or API call, subprocesses do not count as separate executions, unique processes are measured monthly outside the development agent group, and the limit is soft rather than a hard block. But beyond a 30-day trial we found no public prices at all: no tier prices, no overage rates, no self-hosted licence cost and no AI credit pricing, so the monthly invoice is a sales conversation. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The billing units are defined publicly and better than most: an execution is one complete run of a process or API call with sub-processes not counted separately, processes are counted monthly outside the development agent group and can decrease, and exceeding the limit is soft rather than blocking. But we found no public information on tier prices, monthly allowances, overage rates, AI-credit prices or a self-hosting licence cost, so the monthly invoice for a buyer's own processes is not computable from the captured pages. 2
The Skeptic
The billing unit is unusually well defined — an execution is one complete run, sub-processes do not count, each pass-through API call counts as one, and the monthly process count is described down to the Development Agent Group exclusion — but the captured pricing page shows no tier prices, allowances, overage rates, AI credit prices or self-hosted licence fees, so the monthly cost stays a sales conversation. 2 4 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Frends
Is Frends European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Frends as EU-Made.
Where does Frends store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Frends have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Frends?
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: Frends 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 — Data residency, Subprocessors. 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.
- 24 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
- 8 data 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 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
- 8 pricing 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
- 6 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
- 5 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
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 hosting 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
- 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap docs.frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap docs.frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap docs.frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap docs.frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap docs.frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap docs.frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap docs.frends.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →