Workflow Management
Nintex
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Nintex Global Ltd. · www.nintex.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.
Nintex at a glance
- Vendor
- Nintex Global Ltd.
- 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 Nintex 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Nintex, from Nintex Global Ltd., is a workflow management platform strongest on integrations and connectors — a flat 4, with SAP reachable through Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core — and on hosting and portability, whose 4-to-6 spread is the bench's highest and widest. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 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
Nintex, from Nintex Global Ltd., is a workflow management platform strongest on integrations and connectors — a flat 4, with SAP reachable through Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core — and on hosting and portability, whose 4-to-6 spread is the bench's highest and widest. That spread is the genuine split: some judges credited the deployment choice — on-premises, private cloud or a managed environment for K2, at version 5.9.1 — while others weighed the portability gap harder: no public information on exporting workflow definitions or migrating between cloud and self-hosted editions. The weakest results are run reliability, at 1, with no public information on retries, error paths, alerting or execution history, and sovereignty at 1 to 2, where residency, ownership, legal entity jurisdiction and subprocessor exposure all read unknown and the site runs Google Analytics. Process design and governance and audit cluster at 3 to 4, built on the visual builder, templates and OIDC federation but with no public information on approver roles, deadlines, permissions or credential storage. No prices appear; only a free trial and a request for a personalized demo.
Speaks for it
- SAP connectivity is addressed through named routes — Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core — and Salesforce is offered as a named edition
- Deployment models — on-premises, private cloud and a managed environment — are documented for the K2 line, published at version 5.9.1
- The on-premises edition's built-in, locally-hosted AI model is stated to run with no cloud dependency or external API calls
- Automated onboarding for OIDC-compatible identity providers with built-in synchronization is documented
- The privacy policy states user data obtained via third-party applications is not used to develop, train or improve generalized AI or ML models
Held against it
- Run reliability scores sit at 1, and we found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting, searchable execution history or a status page
- Sovereignty scores sit at 1 to 2, with data residency, ownership, legal entity jurisdiction and subprocessor exposure all recorded as unknown
- We found no public information on exporting workflow definitions in a documented format or on a migration path between the cloud and self-hosted editions
- We found no public information on role-based permissions per workflow, where connection credentials are stored, or separate development and production environments
- No public prices, tiers or billing unit appear — the only commercial signals are a free trial and a request for a personalized demo
Best for
- You need the workflow engine on your own infrastructure — K2 is documented for on-premises, private cloud and managed environment deployment, with a locally-hosted AI model
- Your estate runs SAP and you need no-code forms, workflows and tasks connected to your SAP data through Nintex RPA or Theobald's ECS Core
- You rely on OIDC-compatible identity providers and want automated onboarding with built-in user synchronization
Avoid if
- You need documented failure handling — retries, error paths, alerting, searchable execution history — before a workflow can run unattended overnight
- You must be able to evidence where cloud workflows and their logs execute, and which subprocessors — including the AI model providers behind cloud document actions — are involved
- You need an exit route, with export of workflow definitions in a documented format and a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted editions
- Your governance sign-off requires role-based permissions per workflow, credential storage detail and separate development and production environments on the record
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 2 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 2 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 0.5 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
The pages show visual workflow creation for "structured and unstructured processes, no matter the complexity", ready-made templates, no-code forms and tasks for SAP, and the statement that decisions are routed, validated and tracked. For what I sign purchase requests off on — approvers set by role rather than name, a substitute for holidays, deadlines that escalate, and versioning that keeps forty requests already in flight intact — I found no public information. That is a builder with routing and forms, as far as these captures evidence. 3 4 5 7
The Integration Engineer
Visual workflow creation with ready-made templates is evidenced for both the on-premises and cloud platforms, no-code forms, tasks and e-signatures are documented on the SAP page, and the K2 pages state decisions are routed, validated and tracked. But we found no public information on approval roles or substitutes, deadlines and escalation, a modelling notation, or versioning of a process that is already running — the change-without-breaking question a business owner needs answered is not addressed. 3 4 5 7
The Operations Analyst
The captured pages show a visual builder for "structured and unstructured processes, no matter the complexity", with built-in forms, workflow tasks, e-signatures and ready-made templates — real human steps, not just trigger-action chains. But I found no public information on approvals assigned to roles or groups, substitutes, deadlines and escalation, or versioning of a process that is already running, which is exactly the change that bites mid-month-end. 3 4 5 7
The Head of IT
A visual designer for processes "of any complexity", SmartForms, and tasks whose decisions are routed, validated and tracked give me real approval work rather than trigger chains. But I found no public information on deadlines and escalation, substitutes, role-based assignment of approvers, or versioning of a process already running, which is what change control depends on. 3 5 7
The Data Protection Officer
Visually created workflows for structured and unstructured processes, no-code forms, tasks and electronic signatures are evidenced, and decisions are described as routed, validated and tracked. I found no public information on approvals assigned to roles or groups, substitutes, deadlines and escalation, or how a changed process treats the instances already running. 3 5 7
The Skeptic
A visual workflow designer, ready-made templates and SmartForms are on the pages, and K2 claims decisions are routed, validated and tracked — but we found no public information on whether approvers are roles or named individuals, or on deadlines, escalation, substitutes and versioning of a process that is already running. That is a builder with claims of complexity-handling and none of the governance around live instances. 3 4 7
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
SAP is genuinely addressed, via Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core, and Salesforce automation is a named product; the pages describe "dozens of built-in integrations called Connectors" alongside APIs and RPA as integration types. I found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains them, or on a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks and Microsoft 365 connectivity. Named SAP reach through a named partner is worth more than a logo wall and less than documented connectors. 5 6
The Integration Engineer
The connector story is a count — "dozens of built-in integrations called Connectors" — with no statement of the triggers and actions each supports or who maintains them; the SAP reach I care about is real but rides on Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core rather than a native connector with documented actions. We found no public information on a generic HTTP or webhook step, a documented workflow API, or DATEV and Microsoft 365 connectors in the captured pages, though the on-premises K2 orchestration engine can reach internal systems without a hole in the firewall. 4 5 6 7
The Operations Analyst
Integration is sold by breadth — "dozens of built-in integrations called Connectors" plus native, API, third-party and RPA types — but no page shows which triggers and actions a named connector supports or who maintains it, and I found no public information on a generic HTTP or webhook step or a documented API to start and query workflows. The SAP route is the concrete piece: connection through Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core, a credible answer for a DACH ERP estate. 5 6
The Head of IT
SAP is reached through named paths — Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core — and RPA is offered as the way into legacy systems behind the firewall. The wider catalogue is a count ("dozens of built-in integrations") with no per-connector actions or maintenance ownership stated, and I found no public information on a generic HTTP step, inbound webhooks or a documented public API. 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Dozens of Connectors are claimed, and SAP is reachable by named methods — Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core — with RPA positioned to reach legacy systems behind the perimeter. I found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, a generic HTTP or webhook step, a documented API to start and query workflows, or a Microsoft 365 connector. 5 6 7
The Skeptic
Two real names stand out — SAP, reachable via Nintex RPA or partner Theobald's ECS Core, and Salesforce — which is more than a bare logo wall, and partner ownership for the SAP route is at least stated. But 'dozens of built-in integrations called Connectors' is a count, not a catalogue: we found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, a generic HTTP or webhook step, or a documented API to start and query workflows. 5 6 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
Nothing in the captures says what happens when a step fails: I found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerts, a searchable execution history, or runtime and throughput limits. The nearest statement is that every action is traceable and every process is auditable, which speaks to audit rather than to a 3 a.m. failure. For a purchase-approval chain that must not drop an invoice silently, that silence decides it. 7
The Integration Engineer
Beyond "every action is traceable, every process is auditable" we found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerts, searchable execution history, runtime or rate limits, or a status page — and nothing on replaying a failed run from the failing step. The only retention statement captured covers personal data, not execution payloads. 1 7
The Operations Analyst
On what happens when a run fails at 3 a.m. I found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting to email or chat, a searchable execution history, or runtime and throughput limits. The closest statement is that "Every action is traceable, every process is auditable" — an audit claim, not failure handling — and I found no public information on a vendor status page. 7
The Head of IT
I found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting, searchable execution history, or runtime and throughput limits — nothing tells me what happens when a step fails overnight. The only adjacent statement is that every action is traceable and every process is auditable, which is an audit claim, not an error-handling one. 7
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages state that every action is traceable and every process auditable, which is a monitoring claim but not a failure regime. I found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerts, searchable execution history, runtime or throughput limits, or a public status page with incident history. 7
The Skeptic
The closest thing to operations evidence is that 'Every action is traceable, every process is auditable', which is a process-audit claim, not failure handling. We found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting, searchable execution history, runtime or throughput limits, history retention, or a status page — a 3 a.m. failure is undocumented. 7
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 captures state that decisions are routed, validated and tracked, that every action is traceable and every process auditable, and offer automated onboarding for OIDC-compatible identity providers with built-in user synchronization. I found no public information on a role model per workflow or folder, where connection credentials are stored, an exportable audit trail, or what the execution log retains — the privacy policy only says personal data is kept while the account is active or as needed to provide services. For a works council asking what the trail records about employees, these pages give nothing concrete. 1 7
The Integration Engineer
OIDC-compatible identity-provider onboarding with built-in synchronization is documented, and the claim that every action is traceable and every process is auditable speaks to an audit trail; a retention policy for personal data and a statement against training models on third-party user data also appear. But we found no public information on role-based permissions, where connection credentials are stored and whether they are hidden from workflow editors, separate environments with publishing approval, or export of the audit trail and what it records about individual users. 1 7
The Operations Analyst
OIDC identity-provider onboarding with built-in synchronization is documented, and the pages claim decisions are "routed, validated, and tracked" with every process auditable; retention appears only as privacy wording kept "as long as your account is active or as needed to provide you services". I found no public information on per-workflow role permissions, where connection credentials are stored and whether workflow editors can see them, separate environments with a publishing approval, or what the trail records about individual users — the question a works council asks first. 1 7
The Head of IT
OIDC identity federation with built-in user synchronization, a stated traceability claim, and a stated retention approach for personal data are the right ingredients. But I found no public information on role-based permissions per workflow, where connection credentials are stored, separate development and production environments with a publishing approval, or export of the audit trail, so I could not sign this off today. 1 7
The Data Protection Officer
OIDC-compatible identity federation with built-in synchronization is documented, and actions are claimed traceable and auditable. I found no public information on role-based permissions, where connection credentials are stored and who may see them, separate environments with a publishing approval, or masking and retention of execution payloads — the retention the privacy policy names ("as long as your account is active or as needed to provide you services") concerns personal data generally, not what the execution log keeps of a payload, and nothing describes the fields the trail records about individual employees. 1 7
The Skeptic
OIDC-compatible identity federation with automated onboarding is evidenced, and the routed, validated, tracked-decisions claim gestures at auditability, but these are single sentences of marketing. We found no public information on role-based permissions per workflow or folder, where connection credentials are stored and who can see them, separate development and production environments with a publishing approval, an exportable audit trail, or the retention period of execution payloads — the privacy policy's 'as long as your account is active or as needed' is not a period. 1 7
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
On-premises, private cloud and a managed environment are confirmed deployment models, the on-premises edition is versioned at 5.9.1, and its AI model is locally hosted with no external API calls — genuine choice over where the engine runs. On whether the workflows can leave, I found no public information on exporting workflow definitions in a documented format, the engine's licence, versioning in Git, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted. Solid on hosting choice, silent on portability. 4 6 7
The Integration Engineer
On-premises, private cloud and managed deployment are all evidenced for K2, alongside a cloud edition and even a locally-hosted AI model making no external API calls — that is the deployment breadth I want for reaching the SQL server behind the firewall. Portability is the blank side: we found no public information on an export format for workflow definitions, the engine's licence, Git versioning of definitions, or a documented migration path between the cloud and on-premises editions. 4 6 7
The Operations Analyst
Where the engine runs is genuinely flexible: on-premises, private cloud and a managed environment are all documented for the automation line, with a published version number. For portability I found no public information on exporting workflow definitions in a documented format, the engine's licence, or a migration path in either direction between the cloud and self-hosted editions. 4 7
The Head of IT
A self-hosted edition is well evidenced — on-premises, private cloud or a managed environment, with a locally hosted AI model making no external calls — which is half of my exit requirement. The other half is missing: I found no public information on export of workflow definitions as BPMN or documented JSON, the engine's licence, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted. 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
On-premises, private cloud and managed deployment models are all evidenced, with a versioned self-hosted product positioned for full control and data sovereignty. I found no public information on documented system requirements, export of workflow definitions in a documented format such as JSON or BPMN 2.0, the engine's licence, or a migration path between the cloud and self-hosted editions in either direction. 4 6 7
The Skeptic
On-premises, private cloud and managed deployments of Automation K2 are genuinely offered, down to a published version number, and the on-prem edition even carries a locally-hosted AI model. Portability is the hole: we found no public information on exporting workflow definitions in a documented format, the engine's licence, system requirements, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted — the workflows may not be able to leave. 5 6 7
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
European business runs through a UK company alongside a US entity in Bellevue, and I found no public information on where workflows execute, where logs with their payloads are stored, or who the subprocessors are — including the model providers behind the cloud AI actions. The concrete data-handling facts that do exist are a statement that third-party user data is not used to train AI models, and a locally hosted AI model with no external API calls in the on-premises edition. "Full control and data sovereignty" is stated for on-premises, but the pages do not name the infrastructure or the subprocessors behind it. 1 4 7
The Integration Engineer
The captured pages name no execution region, no subprocessor list with locations beyond Google Analytics as an analytics tool, and no EU contracting entity or ownership, and no DPA coverage of execution payloads appears; AI steps in the cloud edition leave model provider locations unstated. The counterweight is the on-premises K2 edition marketed with full control and data sovereignty and a locally-hosted AI model with no external calls, which keeps that portion of the chain on the customer's own servers. 1 6 7
The Operations Analyst
The independently sourced attributes record the legal entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown within a non-EU group structure, and I found no public information on an EU execution location or a subprocessor list, while the site uses analytics tools including Google Analytics. The self-hosted edition — "full control and data sovereignty", its AI "locally-hosted" with "No cloud dependency. No external API calls." — secures only the data that stays on the customer's own servers, which lifts this just off the floor. 1 5 7
The Head of IT
Provenance is rest-of-world with a US entity and European business through a UK company, and I found no public information on execution and log location, the subcontractor list, or where the AI behind the workflow generator and document actions runs. The on-premises "full control and data sovereignty" claim counts only for data staying on customer servers; for the cloud side nothing is evidenced. 1 4 7
The Data Protection Officer
European business runs through a UK contracting entity alongside a US parent structure, and I found no public information on where cloud workflows and their execution logs are stored or who the subprocessors are — including the AI model providers behind the cloud AI actions that extract, translate and summarize documents. The privacy policy promises no training of generalized AI models on third-party user data but names no locations. The one sovereign element evidenced is the self-hosted edition's locally-hosted AI model with no cloud dependency or external API calls, which counts only for data that stays on the customer's own servers. 1 4 6 7
The Skeptic
The vendor picture is Nintex Global Ltd. with Nintex USA, Inc. and European business through Nintex UK Ltd., the site runs Google Analytics, and we found no public information on where cloud workflows execute, where logs land, or which model providers the cloud AI actions (extract, translate, summarize, sentiment) send document content to. The on-prem edition's 'full control and data sovereignty' counts only for data that stays on the customer's servers, and we found no public information on whether that edition makes any call home. 1 4 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
The captures show a free trial and a request for a personalized demo, and nothing with a number on it. I found no public information on tier prices, the billing unit and what counts as one, allowances, overages, or the cost of the on-premises edition and AI actions. From these pages I cannot compute what forty purchase approvals a month would cost — every figure is a sales conversation. 5 6
The Integration Engineer
The only commercial artifacts captured are a free trial and repeated invitations to request a personalized demo; we found no public information on tier prices, the billing unit and what counts as one, monthly allowances, overage, premium connectors or self-hosted licensing. A buyer cannot compute a monthly cost from these pages. 4 5 6
The Operations Analyst
No prices, tiers, billing unit, allowance or overage terms appear in the captures — only a free trial and "Request a personalized demo". A buyer cannot begin to compute a monthly invoice from these pages, let alone what a loop over 5,000 rows would cost. 5 6
The Head of IT
The only commercial signals are a free trial and an invitation to request a personalized demo; I found no public prices, tiers or billing unit on the captured pages. A buyer cannot begin to compute the monthly cost of their own processes. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public prices at all on the captured pages — no tiers, no billing unit, no allowances — only a free trial and an invitation to request a personalized demo, so a buyer cannot compute the monthly cost of their own processes. 5
The Skeptic
We found no public prices on the captured pages — no tiers, no billing unit, no definition of what counts as a task, execution or run, and no prices for the RPA, e-signature or on-premises editions. The buyer's only route is 'Request a personalized demo' or a free trial, so the monthly cost of one's own processes is not computable from anything published. 5
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Nintex
Is Nintex European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Nintex as Rest of world.
Where does Nintex store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Nintex have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Nintex?
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: Nintex alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 38 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
- 10 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
- 9 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
- 7 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
- 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
- 3 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
- 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
- 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Privacy policy www.nintex.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service www.nintex.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.nintex.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.nintex.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap www.nintex.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap www.nintex.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap www.nintex.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →