Workflow Management
Process Street
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Process Street, Inc. · www.process.st
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.
Process Street at a glance
- Vendor
- Process Street, Inc.
- 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 Process Street 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Process Street, Inc. 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
Process Street, Inc. of San Francisco markets an agentic process automation platform that turns SOPs, policies and procedures into checklist workflows with forms, conditional logic, approvals, role assignments and dynamic due dates. The bench scored it strongest on process design and governance and audit (scores at 4), where the documented Users, Managers and Admins role model, task-level permissions, time-stamped logs of every action and revision restore won credit. Weakest are run reliability (scores at 2), with no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerts or a status page, and sovereignty, where legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure all read unknown and the AI providers behind the Dash and Cora agents are unnamed. On hosting and portability the judges genuinely split: the Process Owner called the private cloud option more than plain cloud, while the Operations Analyst scored it 1 as vendor-operated hosting. Integrations and connectors scores sit at 4, with native connections to Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira and wider reach through middleware.
Speaks for it
- Documented conditional logic, approvals with role assignments, dynamic due dates, enforced task order and restore-workflow-revision give a business owner real control over a checklist process.
- Users, Managers and Admins roles come with spelled-out permissions, including task-level permissions.
- Time-stamped logs of every action, approval records, field history and completion logs build an audit-ready trail by default.
- Native connections reach Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira, with a documented API and outbound webhooks from Workflows, Data Sets and Forms.
- A private cloud option with dedicated infrastructure and tighter data-boundary choices is offered as a middle ground short of operating every software layer.
Held against it
- We found no public information on retries, error paths, error workflows, failure alerting, runtime or rate limits or a public status page — and the terms reserve the right to modify or discontinue the service at any time without notice.
- Legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure all read unknown, with no public information on where workflows execute or where execution logs are stored, and unnamed AI providers behind the Dash and Cora agents.
- We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, where connector credentials are stored, separate test and production environments with publishing approval, or export of the audit trail.
- No public information on a generic HTTP step, inbound webhooks or connectors for SAP, DATEV or Microsoft Dynamics, with the multi-thousand-app reach running through Zapier, Make, Power Automate and Tray.io middleware — and the captured pages give different figures for integration breadth.
- The pricing page lists features, apps and support services but no price figures, billing unit or monthly allowance, with 'Contact sales' the only route shown to numbers.
Best for
- You need recurring checklist work — employee onboarding, vendor reviews, access approvals, policy reviews — to run with owners, due dates and required fields.
- Your compliance story rests on role-based permissions and a time-stamped audit history of who did what and when.
- Your stack centers on Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce or Jira, and middleware (Zapier, Make, Power Automate, Tray.io) is acceptable for wider reach.
- Vendor-operated hosting, including the private cloud option with dedicated infrastructure, meets your needs without self-hosting.
Avoid if
- You need failure behavior documented — retries, error paths, failure alerting, a status page — before letting an automation run unattended or overnight.
- Your purchase requires stated data residency, a subprocessor list, or named and located AI providers before signing.
- You need an exit path for your processes — export of workflow definitions in a documented format another tool could read.
- You must see prices, a billing unit or allowances on public pages before engaging sales, since the only route shown is 'Contact sales'.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 2.5 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 2 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 1 of 5 |
| Governance, credentials & audit trail | 2 of 5 |
| Hosting options & portability | 1 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
Conditional logic, approvals, role assignments, dynamic due dates and a restore-revision feature cover the core of approvals by role and deadlines, with runs carrying owners, due dates and required fields. We found no public information on substitutes, escalation chains, parallel paths, or what happens to already-running instances when a template changes — the holiday-substitute and in-flight questions I must answer before purchase. 2 13
The Integration Engineer
Checklist workflows with form fields, conditional logic, approvals, role assignments, dynamic due dates and enforced task order are documented, template revisions can be restored, and the platform keeps approval records, timestamps and dashboards that show bottlenecks. We found no public information on substitutes, escalation chains, four-eyes approvals, a test mode before publishing, or how running instances behave when the workflow behind them is changed. 2 12 13
The Operations Analyst
The published feature list shows conditional logic, built-in form fields, approvals with role assignments, dynamic due dates, enforced task order and scheduled workflows, plus automatic version-history tracking and a restore-revision function and dashboards showing bottlenecks — enough for a business owner to design a real governed process. We found no public information on parallel paths, substitutes and escalation chains, a documented notation like BPMN, a simulation mode before publishing, or how running instances behave when the template changes. 2 12 13
The Head of IT
The captured feature list gives conditional logic, form fields, approvals with role assignments, dynamic due dates and revision restore — a business owner can genuinely change a checklist process. I found no public information on parallel paths, reminders or escalation chains, substitutes, a test or simulation mode before publishing, or whether running instances keep their original version when the workflow changes; version history is mentioned as tracked automatically, but only revision restore is described. 2 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Conditional branching, rich form fields, approvals, role assignments, dynamic due dates and a restore-revision capability are all documented, so a business owner gets conditions, forms, approvals by role and version restore. We found no public information on substitutes, escalation chains, a test or simulation mode before publishing, or what happens to runs in flight when a template is revised. The record side is better described: approval records, timestamps and field history are captured as part of the workflow history. 2 11 12 13
The Skeptic
Forms with rich media, conditional logic, approvals as review steps, role assignments, dynamic due dates and enforced task order are evidenced, plus a restore-workflow-revision feature. We found no public information on a documented notation like BPMN, substitutes or escalation chains, a test or simulation mode, or whether running instances keep their original version when the template changes — so this sits short of a fully governed process asset. 2 12 13
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
Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira are named as native targets, with a documented API and outbound webhooks, but the multi-thousand-app reach runs through Zapier, Make, Tray.io and Power Automate rather than native connectors. We found no public information on a native connector to SAP, DATEV or Dynamics, a generic HTTP step, inbound webhooks, or who maintains each connector — every path into our ERP would carry a second vendor. 2 8 8
The Integration Engineer
Reach is mostly by middleware — Zapier with 5,000+ apps, Make with 1,500+, Power Automate whose run, update and trigger actions are actually spelled out, plus Tray.io — alongside native connections named to Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira, outbound webhooks from Workflows, Data Sets and Forms, and an API for tasks, users and data. We found no public information on a generic HTTP step, on any DACH ERP such as SAP, DATEV or Microsoft Dynamics, or on an agent that reaches databases and file shares behind the customer firewall; the captured pages also give different figures for integration breadth, one listing the middleware connectors and another claiming direct universal integrations to 5,000+ systems. 2 8 13 8
The Operations Analyst
There is a documented API, native webhooks firing from workflows, data sets and forms, named direct connections to Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira, and the Power Automate connector's specific triggers and actions are spelled out. The wider reach is expressed in round app counts — the captured pages give different figures, one claiming direct universal integrations to 5,000+ systems while the integration pages attribute 5,000+ to Zapier and 1,500+ to Make — and we found no public information on a generic HTTP step, inbound webhooks beyond an email trigger, a DACH ERP connector such as SAP or DATEV, custom connector tooling, or any on-premise agent reaching systems behind the firewall. 2 8 13 8
The Head of IT
Named connections are real — Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira natively, plus middleware through Zapier, Make, Power Automate and Tray.io with the Power Automate connector's actions spelled out — and there is a documented API and outbound webhooks from workflows, data sets and forms. I found no public information on a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, connectors for SAP, DATEV or Dynamics, connector maintenance ownership, or any agent reaching systems behind our firewall. 2 8 8
The Data Protection Officer
Named native connections to Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira, documented Power Automate actions, outbound webhooks from Workflows, Data Sets and Forms, and a documented API give real reach; the 5,000+ systems claim rides mainly on Zapier and Make middleware. We found no public information on a generic HTTP step, a named DACH ERP or accounting connector such as DATEV or SAP, or an agent reaching systems behind the firewall. From my desk every step through Zapier or Make is another middleware subprocessor copying the payload, and we found no public information on who maintains each connector. 2 8 13 8
The Skeptic
The headline 5,000-plus figure rides on the Zapier and Make catalogues, with the named native automations being Google Sheets, Slack, DocuSign, Salesforce and Jira and a documented API for custom integration. We found no public information on each connector's documented triggers and actions, a generic HTTP step inside workflows, inbound webhooks, an on-premise agent, or who maintains the connectors — and no ERP or accounting system common in DACH is named. 2 8 13 8
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
What the pages show is process monitoring — analytics dashboards, completion logs, timestamps and bottleneck views — plus vendor-side data backups, not failure handling. We found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerts, execution-history retention, runtime or rate limits, or a public status page, so I cannot judge what happens when an automation fails overnight. 2 3 13
The Integration Engineer
Monitoring is real: workflow analytics dashboards, custom reports, time-stamped logs of every action, and data sync to Snowflake or Power BI so the customer's own tools get the numbers. We found no public information on automatic retries or back-off, error paths or error workflows, failure alerting, searchable execution history with input and output per step, replay of a failed run from the failing step, runtime or rate limits, or a public status page. 2 12 13
The Operations Analyst
Execution history is genuinely evidenced — time-stamped logs of every action, completion logs, field history, approval records and dashboards showing bottlenecks, with sync to Snowflake and Power BI — which is the searchable record I want. But on the part that decides the score, we found no public information on retries or back-off, error paths or error workflows, failure alerts reaching email or chat, execution-data retention per plan, runtime and throughput limits, or a public status page with incident history. 2 3 13
The Head of IT
The captured pages are silent on failure: I found no public information on retries, error paths or error workflows, failure alerts, execution-history retention, or runtime, payload and rate limits, and no status page. What is documented is regular backups and time-stamped logs of every action, and the terms reserve the right to modify or discontinue the service without notice — I would not run an unattended process on that. 3 4 12
The Data Protection Officer
What is documented is process monitoring — dashboards showing bottlenecks, completion logs, timestamps — not failure handling; we found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting, runtime or throughput limits, or a status page. Execution-record retention is stated only as "as long as your account is active or as needed to provide you services", so I cannot say how long the payload copy in the log is kept. 2 3 13
The Skeptic
What is evidenced is analytics dashboards showing bottlenecks, regular backups, and time-stamped logs of every action. We found no public information on automatic retries, error paths or error workflows, failure alerting, searchable execution history with per-step input and output, runtime or throughput limits, retention of failed runs, or a status page with incidents — for a platform claiming to run business-critical processes, that silence is the finding. 2 3 13
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
Users, Managers and Admins with escalating permissions, task permissions, and an audit history showing who did what when give me something to put in front of an auditor, and version history with approvals is tracked automatically for policies. We found no public information on SSO, separate environments with publishing approval, SCIM, or where connection credentials are stored, and retention of execution data is stated only as "as long as your account is active or as needed to provide you services". 3 11 12 13
The Integration Engineer
Three documented roles — Users, Managers, Admins — with task-level permissions, and an audit history showing who did what, when, and with which supporting information, tracked and time-stamped by default, is more than most checklist tools show. We found no public information on SSO via SAML or OIDC, SCIM provisioning, how connector credentials are stored beyond the Dash assistant's encrypted tokens, separate development and production environments, a retention period for execution data rather than "as long as your account is active", or export of the audit trail. 3 11 12 13
The Operations Analyst
Three documented roles — User, Manager, Admin — with distinct permission tiers, an audit history recording who did what and when with supporting information, and time-stamped logs audit-ready by default put this above the basics; the privacy pages also state secrets for the Dash assistant are encrypted at rest with per-tenant isolation and give a retention basis tied to account activity. We found no public information on SSO, where integration credentials are stored and who may see them, separate development and production environments with a publishing approval, configurable payload retention, or exporting the audit trail. 3 11 12 13
The Head of IT
Documented roles — Users, Managers, Admins — with distinct permissions, task permissions and an audit history of who did what, when and with which supporting information give me something to govern with. But I found no public information on SSO via SAML or OIDC, SCIM provisioning, where connection credentials are stored, separate test and production environments with controlled publishing, export of the audit trail, or vendor certifications, and the only retention statement I found is "for as long as your account is active or as needed". 3 11 13
The Data Protection Officer
Three role tiers with spelled-out permissions, task-level permissions, and an audit history that "shows who did what, when, and with which supporting information" are documented, so the trail does record employees' behaviour precisely. We found no public information on SSO, where workflow connection credentials are stored (encryption at rest is stated only for the Dash assistant's tokens), payload masking or redaction, separate environments with a publishing approval, or export of the audit trail. Retention rests on the vague account-lifetime basis rather than a configurable period. 2 3 11 12 13
The Skeptic
A three-tier role model with spelled-out permissions, a time-stamped audit history of who did what and when, automatic version history for policies, and no AI training on customer data are all on the record. We found no public information on SSO or SCIM, separate environments with a publishing approval, where connection credentials are stored (only the AI assistant Dash's tokens are stated as encrypted at rest), field-level log redaction, or export of the audit trail; retention is stated only as "as long as your account is active or as needed to provide you services". 3 11 12 13
Hosting options & portability
panel disagrees
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
A private-cloud option with dedicated infrastructure is offered as a middle ground short of operating every software layer ourselves, which is more than plain cloud. We found no public information on an EU region, on system requirements or a migration path for that option, and the only export described moves user content to third-party services, with nothing on workflow definitions in a documented format another tool could read. 4 13
The Integration Engineer
A private cloud option is described as dedicated infrastructure with tighter data-boundary choices, and the terms mention export tools plus an API for passing workflow and data-set content to other systems. We found no public information on a self-hosted or on-premise edition with system requirements, a stated cloud region, export of workflow definitions in a documented format such as JSON or BPMN, or the licence of the engine. 4 8 13
The Operations Analyst
A private cloud with dedicated infrastructure is offered as a middle-ground option, and the terms mention tools enabling export of content to third-party services, but this remains vendor-operated hosting. We found no public information on selectable cloud regions, a self-hosted edition with system requirements, the engine's licence, or export of workflow definitions in a documented format another tool or a later version could read. 4 8 13
The Head of IT
A private cloud option with dedicated infrastructure is offered as a middle ground, and the terms mention tools to export information including user content to third-party services. I found no public information on a self-hosted or on-premise edition, a cloud region, the engine's licence, or export of workflow definitions as documented JSON or BPMN — so I cannot see an exit for our processes, and that is a blocker for me. 4 13
The Data Protection Officer
A private cloud option with "dedicated infrastructure and tighter data-boundary choices" is the only hosting choice beyond the standard cloud; we found no public information on a cloud region, a self-hosted or on-premise edition, the engine's licence, or export of workflow definitions in a documented format another tool could read. The terms promise only that tools "enable you to export information, including User Content, to third party services". 3 4 13
The Skeptic
The on-premise-themed page positions private cloud with dedicated infrastructure as a middle ground, and the terms mention tools to export user content to third-party services. We found no public information on a self-hosted edition with system requirements, a named cloud region, an engine licence, export of workflow definitions in a documented format another tool could read, or a migration path in either direction. 4 13
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 vendor is Process Street, Inc. of San Francisco, and we found no public information on data residency, subprocessor locations, or the location of the unnamed AI providers behind the AI features, while the privacy policy confirms third-party analytics such as Google Analytics. That is exactly the picture of a non-EU contracting entity with unnamed subprocessors and unstated execution location. 3 4
The Integration Engineer
The vendor and contracting entity sit in San Francisco, and we found no public information on where workflows execute, where execution logs and payload copies are stored, or any subprocessor list; Google Analytics is named as a third-party analytics tool, and the AI features (Dash, Cora) run on unnamed AI providers, with only the statement that neither the vendor nor its AI providers train models on customer data. For a European buyer this is the weakest part of the picture. 1 3
The Operations Analyst
The contracting entity is Process Street, Inc. of San Francisco with execution and log-storage locations unstated; the only named third party is Google Analytics, and the AI providers behind the AI steps are referenced but unnamed and unlocated. Every sovereignty attribute — legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure — shows unknown on the public pages, which by the published anchors is the floor. 1 3 4
The Head of IT
The contracting entity is Process Street, Inc. of San Francisco, and I found no public information on where workflows execute or where execution logs are stored, on a subprocessor list, or on which AI providers run behind the Dash and Cora agents and where they sit. The privacy policy's commitments — no AI training on our data, per-tenant isolation and secrets encrypted at rest — are safeguards, but they are not location transparency. 3 4 13
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting party is a US company, and we found no public information on an EU execution or log-storage location, a subprocessor list, or the identity and location of the AI model providers behind Cora and Dash — for an engine that logs approvals of employees' work, that opacity is disqualifying. Small credit for the privacy policy's promises that AI providers are not permitted to train on customer data and that data is isolated per tenant with secrets encrypted at rest. 1 3 13
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Process Street, Inc. of San Francisco, and we found no public information on where workflows execute, where execution logs and payloads are stored, or a subprocessor list — Google Analytics is named for analytics, but the AI providers behind the Cora and Dash agents are unidentified and of unstated location, while a statement confirms such AI providers exist ("we do not permit our AI providers" to train on your data). The private-cloud middle-ground language offers no data-boundary commitments a European buyer could audit. 1 3 4 13
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 captured pricing page enumerates tiers by features — apps, analytics, support services — but no price figure appears anywhere on it, and the only cost route shown is "Contact sales". I cannot compute a monthly invoice from these pages: the billing unit, allowances, overages and add-on prices are all absent. 1 2
The Integration Engineer
The captured pricing page differentiates tiers by features, apps and support services but shows no price figures, no billing unit and no monthly allowance, and the route to numbers is contacting sales. We found no public information on overage pricing, premium connectors, extra environments, self-hosting licences or what AI steps cost, so a buyer cannot compute a monthly total from public pages. 1 2
The Operations Analyst
The captured pricing page lists features, apps and support services — email and chat support through a dedicated success manager — but we found no price figures on it, and no billing unit, monthly allowance, overage price, premium connector price or AI-step cost anywhere public; the only buying path shown is a contact-sales link. From public pages alone the monthly cost of a given set of workflows is not computable, so I cannot put a number on what a month-end run costs. 1 2
The Head of IT
The captured pricing page lists features, apps, branding options and support services, but I found no public prices, no tier structure and no billing unit — whether you pay per user, per run or per task is not stated. The only commercial path shown is a "Contact sales" link, so a buyer cannot compute even a baseline monthly cost. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page shows feature lists, apps and service packages but no price figures at all, and enterprise access is "Contact sales"; we found no public information on tier prices, the billing unit, monthly allowances, overage, or the cost of add-ons and AI steps. A buyer cannot compute any monthly cost from these pages. 1 2
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page lists features, apps and support packages, but no price figure, billing unit, monthly allowance or overage appears anywhere in the captured material — the only path given is a contact-sales link. With nothing stated about what counts as one execution or task, a buyer cannot compute their monthly cost from these pages. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | 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 Process Street
Is Process Street European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Process Street as Rest of world.
Where does Process Street store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Process Street have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Process Street?
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: Process Street 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.
- 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.
- 42 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
- 5 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
- 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
- 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
- 1 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap www.process.st Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →