Workflow Management
Simplifier
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Simplifier AG · simplifier.io
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.
Simplifier at a glance
- Vendor
- Simplifier AG
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Simplifier 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Simplifier, a workflow management platform from Simplifier AG of Würzburg, scores highest on hosting and portability with a flat 7: on-premises, hybrid and EU cloud deployment in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, Docker delivery, published system requirements, and an encrypted full-environment export available on request. 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
Simplifier, a workflow management platform from Simplifier AG of Würzburg, scores highest on hosting and portability with a flat 7: on-premises, hybrid and EU cloud deployment in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, Docker delivery, published system requirements, and an encrypted full-environment export available on request. Integrations and connectors follow at 6-7, carried by a vendor-maintained SAP addon from an SAP Silver Partner documented down to permission objects. Process design and run reliability each drew a flat 4: user tasks with group-based assignment and a granular execution log are documented, but we found no public information on deadlines, escalation, retries, error paths or failure alerting. Sovereignty is where the judges genuinely split, 3 to 5 — the data protection officer credited processing stated to take place in Germany by default (5), while the operations analyst (3) weighed the unconfirmed contracting entity and the missing subprocessor list, including the model providers behind the AI agents. Governance and audit sits at 5-6. The captured pages show no price, tier or billing unit.
Speaks for it
- Hosting and portability scored a flat 7 across on-premises, hybrid and EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, all with the same feature set.
- An on-request export hands over password-encrypted data volumes and a MySQL dump with which a customer can rebuild a Simplifier environment on its own.
- A vendor-maintained SAP addon from an SAP Silver Partner documents modules across ERP6, IS-U, MM, SD, PM, PP, WM, HR and QM down to the required SAP permission objects.
- Single sign-on spans OAuth, SAML, OpenID Connect, LDAP, Active Directory and SAP SSO2 with role synchronization, and projects separate design from runtime permissions.
- The execution log records connector executions with payload and parameters and treats any exception as a logged entry type.
Held against it
- Run reliability scored a flat 4, with no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerts, runtime or throughput limits, or a status page.
- Process design scored a flat 4, with no public information on deadlines, escalation, substitutes or what happens to instances already running when a definition changes.
- Sovereignty scores span 3 to 5, with no public subprocessor list, no stated provider or location for the models behind AI-agent steps, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction not confirmed on the captured pages.
- Connector depth is evidenced on SAP only — we found no public information on a generic HTTP or webhook step, custom connectors, or Microsoft 365 or DATEV connectors.
- We found no public information on where connection credentials are stored, on payload redaction, or on how long execution payloads are retained.
Best for
- You run SAP ECC or IS-U behind a firewall and want an automation engine installed on-premises next to the systems it calls.
- You need the same feature set whether you deploy on your own infrastructure, hybrid, or in an EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
- You route approvals by group or role, with recipients resolved from Active Directory or an HR system rather than named individuals.
- You want a stated exit path of encrypted data volumes and a database dump before committing to a platform.
Avoid if
- You need published proof of unattended-run handling — automatic retries, error paths and overnight failure alerts — before trusting overnight batches.
- Your integration targets sit outside the SAP landscape that the documented connectors cover.
- Your procurement cannot complete without a confirmed contracting jurisdiction, a subprocessor list, and stated locations for where AI-agent steps process data.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 2 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 3 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 2 of 5 |
| Governance, credentials & audit trail | 3 of 5 |
| Hosting options & portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 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
User tasks can be assigned to multiple groups or resolved from variables fed by an HR system or Active Directory, which is exactly how I want approvers set — by role, not by name — and the Launchpad Task Inbox collects them for participants. But the captured pages give me nothing on deadlines, escalation, substitutes, or what happens to the forty requests already in flight when I change the process. 5 11 1
The Integration Engineer
User tasks go to multiple groups and users or resolve recipients from variables in an HR system, Active Directory or a database, with each variable set editable, mandatory or read-only and a task inbox in the Launchpad — that is approvals by group, not by named individual. I found no public information on deadlines, escalation, substitutes or what happens to instances already running when a process changes, and the captured pages never show the designer or notation workflows are modelled in. 5 10 11
The Operations Analyst
User tasks can be assigned to multiple groups, users or variables — with recipients drawn from Active Directory, an HR system or a database — and they surface in a task inbox in the Launchpad, which is more than named individuals. We found no public information on a visual designer with branching, deadlines, escalation, or what happens to instances already running when a process changes. 1 5
The Head of IT
User tasks can be assigned to multiple groups and users, or resolved from variables drawn from Active Directory, an HR system or a database, with fields set as editable, mandatory or read-only and a task inbox in the Launchpad — approvals by group rather than by named individual. We found no public information on deadlines, escalation or substitutes, on versioning a process that is already running, or on the modelling notation the designer uses, so I cannot tell whether a business owner can change a live process without breaking instances in flight. 5 1
The Data Protection Officer
User tasks sit inside the workflow, can be assigned to multiple groups or users or resolved from variables out of Active Directory, an HR system or a database, land in a task inbox, and carry variables configurable as editable, mandatory or read-only — a genuine human approval mechanism with roles rather than named individuals. I found no public information on deadlines, escalation, substitutes, four-eyes steps, a visual notation such as BPMN, or what happens to running instances when a definition changes; the transport system controls delivery from development to production but nothing describes instance versioning. That is a solid middle position a business owner can partly rely on. 5 11 1
The Skeptic
Human steps are real and group-based: user tasks assignable to multiple groups or users, recipients resolvable from Active Directory, a database or an HR system via variables, task fields configurable as editable, mandatory or read-only, and a task inbox in the launchpad. We found no public information on deadlines, escalation or substitutes, on a modelling notation such as BPMN, or on versioning of processes already running — the transport system documents moving packages from development to production but says nothing about instances in flight. 5 9 11
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
The SAP story is genuinely deep — a vendor-maintained addon documented down to RFC authorisation objects across ECC and IS-U modules — and the on-premises edition puts the engine behind my firewall next to the systems it calls. We found no public information on a generic HTTP step, inbound webhooks, or connectors outside the SAP world such as Microsoft 365 or DATEV. 6 7 12 5
The Integration Engineer
The SAP Addon is documented the way I want connectors documented: named modules across ERP6, IS-U, MM, PM, PP and SD, SOAP and RFC access, configurable connection pools, and the exact S_RFC and S_SERVICE permission objects a Basis admin must grant — maintained by Simplifier itself as an SAP Silver Partner, on a platform installable on-premises next to the systems it calls, with a Workflow REST API. I found no public information on a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, building custom connectors, or a connector catalogue beyond SAP such as Microsoft 365 or DATEV. 6 7 12 5
The Operations Analyst
The SAP connectors are unusually deep: dozens of documented modules across ERP6, MM, SD, PM, PP and IS-U with the exact RFC and SOAP authorisations, maintained by the vendor itself as an SAP Silver Partner, plus a documented Workflow REST API and a full on-premises edition that reaches internal systems directly. We found no public information on a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, Microsoft 365, or custom connectors built from an OpenAPI description. 6 7 12
The Head of IT
The vendor-maintained SAP addon is the strongest piece: named modules across ERP6, IS-U, MM, SD, PM, PP, WM, HR and QM, SOAP and RFC interfaces with the required SAP permission objects spelled out, connector endpoints configurable via an endpoints tab, and the whole platform able to run on-premises so internal systems are reached from inside; a workflow REST API is also documented. We found no public information on a generic HTTP or webhook step, on building custom connectors, or on connectors to Microsoft 365, DATEV or other systems beyond SAP. 6 7 5 12
The Data Protection Officer
The SAP side is unusually well documented: a vendor-maintained SAP addon from a Silver Partner with named modules across ERP6, IS-U, MM, SD, PM, PP, WM, HR and QM, RFC and SOAP access with the exact SAP permission objects, endpoint selection, connection pooling, plus a documented workflow REST API, and the on-premises edition puts the engine behind the firewall next to the systems it calls. I found no public information on a generic HTTP/REST connector, inbound webhooks, custom connectors, or non-SAP connectors such as Microsoft 365 or DATEV, so the depth is evidenced on one front only. 6 7 5 12
The Skeptic
The SAP evidence is unusually concrete — a vendor-built addon from an SAP Silver Partner, named modules across ERP6, MM, SD, PP, PM, WM, HR, QM and IS-U, documented RFC and SOAP permission objects, endpoint selection and connection-pool settings — and the platform itself runs on-premises, reaching systems behind the firewall. We found no public information on Microsoft 365 connectors, a generic HTTP or webhook step, building custom connectors, or public API documentation beyond a mention of a Workflow REST API. 5 6 7 12
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
The execution log records connector calls with their payload and treats exceptions as a first-class entry type, and a monitoring area covers workflows, sub-workflows and statistics; cloud operations include patching, backup and restore on the vendor's side. We found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerts, runtime or throughput limits, or a public status page — so I cannot judge what happens at 3 a.m. 8 9 12
The Integration Engineer
The execution log is properly specified — connector executions with payload, connector calls with every parameter including constants, business objects, jobs, and any exception across all of it — and the monitoring area covers workflows, sub-workflows, statistics and logs. Beyond that I found no public information on automatic retries, replaying a failed run from the failing step, failure alerts, runtime or throughput limits, retention of the history, or a public status page. 8 9
The Operations Analyst
The execution log is documented at step level — connector executions with their payload, all parameters including constants, and any exception — and the monitoring area covers workflows, sub-workflows, statistics and logs. We found no public information on automatic retries with back-off, an error path, failure alerts reaching email or chat, or the runtime and throughput limits a month-end run might hit. 8 9
The Head of IT
The execution log documents exactly what is captured per step — connector executions with payload, all parameters including constants, and any exception — and a monitoring area covers workflow monitoring, sub-workflows, statistics and logs. We found no public information on automatic retries, error paths, alerting when a run fails overnight, retention of execution history, or runtime and throughput limits, and no status page or uptime commitment. 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
The execution log records each connector execution with its payload, all parameters including constants, and any exception, and the monitoring area covers workflows, sub-workflows, statistics and logs — the trace itself is real, and cloud operations cover availability, patching, backup and restore. But I found no public information on automatic retries, error paths, failure alerting, how long the logged payloads are retained, runtime or throughput limits, a status page or an SLA, which is what decides a 3 a.m. question. Exceptions being captured in the log is more than silence, yet nothing shows what happens next. 8 9 11 12
The Skeptic
The execution log is granular — connector executions, job executions and any exception are logged with payload and parameters, and a monitoring area covers workflows, sub-workflows, statistics and logs. But nothing answers the 3 a.m. question: we found no public information on retries or back-off, error paths, failure alerts, retention of execution history, runtime or throughput limits, or a status page. 7 8 9 11
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
Global, project and business roles with design- and runtime-separated permissions, SSO across six protocols including role synchronisation, and a transport system moving apps from development to production like SAP transports — that is a real governance model, and app tokens are described as traceable and auditable. We found no public information on where connection credentials are stored, whether the audit trail can be exported with its user fields, or how long execution payloads are kept beyond a general privacy-policy statement. 11 10 8 2
The Integration Engineer
SSO across OAuth, SAML, LDAP, OpenID Connect, Active Directory and SAP SSO2 with role synchronization, global and project and business roles, design and runtime permissions managed separately, a transport system moving apps from development to production like SAP's own, and application tokens linked to roles traceably. I found no public information on where connection credentials are stored or who can see them, on an audit log of workflow changes, or on a retention period for the execution payloads the log explicitly records — the exact payload question a works council will raise. 11 10 8
The Operations Analyst
Roles run in global, project and business layers, single sign-on spans SAML, OIDC, LDAP and more with role synchronisation, permissions are split between design and runtime, and apps move from development to production through a transport system. We found no public information on where connection credentials are stored, an audit log of workflow changes, or how long execution payloads are retained — and the execution log captures full payloads and even constant parameters. 8 10 11
The Head of IT
SSO is documented across OAuth, SAML, LDAP, OpenID Connect, Active Directory and SAP SSO2 with role synchronization, role-based access adapts to app lifecycle changes, projects separate design-time from runtime permissions, and a transport system moves apps from development to production in a controlled way — that is the test-and-production discipline I insist on. The execution log documents what it records about users' actions, including payloads and parameters. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, payload redaction, configurable retention, or exporting the audit trail. 11 10 8
The Data Protection Officer
Identity is centralized across SAML, OpenID Connect, OAuth, LDAP, Active Directory and SAP SSO2 with role synchronization; global, project and business roles separate design from runtime permissions; every app use generates an application token with linked roles in a traceable and auditable manner; and packages and transports carry apps to production like the SAP transport concept. What holds it down from my chair: the execution log keeps full payloads and even constant parameters, and I found no public information on payload redaction, configurable log retention, credential storage, SCIM provisioning, audit trail export, or certifications such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2 — precisely what a works council will ask the approval trail to show and hide. 11 10 8 2
The Skeptic
Roles and identity are genuinely modelled: SSO across OAuth, SAML, OIDC, LDAP, Active Directory and SAP SSO2 with role synchronization, global, project and business roles, permissions that adapt to app lifecycle, separate design and runtime permissions per project, and a transport system for controlled delivery. The trail itself is thinner — an application token links roles traceably per app load and the execution log records payloads, but we found no public information on credential storage, an exportable audit trail of design changes, or the retention period of execution payloads. 2 8 10 11
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, hybrid or EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam with the same features, Docker deployment, published system requirements, and an encrypted data-and-database export on request to set the environment up on my own servers — a real exit path. We found no public information on the engine's licence or versioning workflow definitions in Git, and the export is a MySQL dump with data volumes rather than documented workflow formats. 12 13 4
The Integration Engineer
On-premises in a Docker container with a system-requirements page and hyperscaler independence, a hybrid model for phased migration, the same feature set in all three hosting models, and an EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam. Leaving is addressed too — on request you receive the complete data volumes and a MySQL dump, both password-encrypted, expressly to set up and migrate an environment on your own — though I found no public information on the engine's licence, on versioning workflow definitions in Git, or on a path back from self-hosted into the cloud, and the export is described as full data volumes and a database dump rather than workflow definitions in a documented interchange format. 12 13 4
The Operations Analyst
The same feature set runs on-premises, hybrid or in an EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, delivered as a Docker container with a system requirements document, and a documented export hands over encrypted data volumes plus a database dump so a customer can stand up its own environment. We found no public information on the engine's licence, versioning of definitions in Git, or an export in a documented open format another tool could read. 4 12 13
The Head of IT
On-premises, hybrid and EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam are all offered with no functional limitations, Docker deployment, documented system requirements, and on exit an encrypted export of the complete data volumes plus a MySQL dump is available to set up a Simplifier environment of your own — a real exit path. That export is an environment dump rather than workflow definitions as BPMN or documented JSON, and we found no public information on versioning definitions in Git or on the engine's licence, which I want published before betting five years on it. 12 13 4
The Data Protection Officer
Simplifier runs on-premises, hybrid or in an EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam with the same feature set, ships as a Docker container with system requirements documented, hyperscaler-independent, and an on-request export hands back the complete data volumes and a MySQL dump, password-encrypted, with which a customer can set up and migrate a Simplifier environment on their own — a stated exit in a usable form. I found no public information on versioning workflow definitions in Git, the engine's licence, or a documented migration path back from self-hosted to cloud. That earns a strong score just under the top band. 12 13 4
The Skeptic
All three deployment models are documented with the same features — on-premises in the customer's own infrastructure, hybrid, and an EU cloud in Frankfurt or Amsterdam — plus Docker as the deployment unit, a system-requirements page and a stated responsibility split. The exit path is a full-environment export on request, an encrypted MySQL dump and data volumes with which, per the vendor, you can rebuild a Simplifier environment yourself; we found no public information on the engine's licence, on versioning of definitions in Git, or on an export in a format another tool could read. 4 12 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 privacy policy states that data is processed in Germany by default in a high-security data centre, the EU cloud names Frankfurt and Amsterdam, and the on-premises edition keeps data on my own servers. But we found no public information on subprocessors or on where AI steps run their models, and the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity or ownership. 2 12 1
The Integration Engineer
The privacy policy states data is processed in Germany by default with foreign processing only in individual legally permitted cases, the EU cloud runs in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, and an on-premises edition keeps data on the customer's own servers. I found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the captured pages, none on subprocessors, and none on where the models behind the AI agents run. 1 2 12
The Operations Analyst
The captured pages promise EU cloud hosting in Frankfurt or Amsterdam and processing in Germany by default, but the independently sourced attributes leave the contracting entity, ownership and data residency unconfirmed. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, including the model providers behind the heavily marketed AI agents. 1 2 12
The Head of IT
The captured pages state that personal data is processed principally in Germany in a high-security data centre, EU cloud runs in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, and the vendor is Simplifier AG of Würzburg — though the jurisdiction is flagged as not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. We found no public information on subprocessors, and the headline AI-agent capability has no stated model provider or model location. 2 12 1
The Data Protection Officer
Processing is stated to take place in Germany by default with foreign processing only in individual legally permitted cases, EU cloud hosting is offered in Frankfurt or Amsterdam, and the company presents itself as Simplifier AG of Würzburg. But the chain behind it is dark: I found no public information on a subprocessor list, on where the AI agents — the platform's headline feature — send their prompts and payloads, on a data processing agreement covering execution payloads, or on certifications, and the independently computed attributes leave legal jurisdiction, ownership and data residency unconfirmed. An AI step of unstated destination inside a workflow is exactly the transfer I have to flag. 2 12 1 11
The Skeptic
The privacy policy states processing in Germany by default with foreign processing only in individual legally permitted cases, and the only named cloud locations are Frankfurt and Amsterdam. Against that, we found no public information on subprocessors or on which model providers the AI-agent steps send data to, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction was not confirmed on the vendor's captured pages — the on-premises edition only covers data that stays on the customer's servers. 1 2 11 12
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
We found no public pricing information at all — no tiers, no billing unit, no starting price on any of the captured vendor pages — so the monthly cost of my own processes is not computable without a sales conversation. For a purchase approval I cannot even estimate the invoice, and that decides it. 1 12
The Integration Engineer
I found no public information on prices anywhere in the captured pages — no tiers, no billing unit, no allowance, nothing on what a user, an app or an execution costs — so every cost is a sales conversation. 1 4
The Operations Analyst
No captured page shows a price, a tier, a billing unit, an allowance or an overage rate — procurement runs through AWS, Azure and SAP marketplaces and a sales contact. The monthly cost of a given set of workflows, let alone what a loop over 5,000 rows costs, is not computable from public pages. 1 12
The Head of IT
We found no public information on prices — no tiers, no billing unit, no allowance and no add-on or self-hosting prices on the homepage or terms pages, so the monthly cost of our own processes cannot be computed from what is published and every tier is a sales conversation. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
No captured page states a price, a tier, a billing unit or what counts as one execution, task or user, and I found no public information on self-hosted licensing, environments or the cost of AI steps. A buyer can compute nothing from public pages alone; every number is a sales conversation. 1 4
The Skeptic
The captured homepage, technology and deployment pages contain no price, no tier, no billing unit and no allowance — not even a self-hosted licence figure alongside the marketplace listings. A buyer cannot compute any monthly cost from public pages; we found no public information on pricing at all. 1 4 12
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Simplifier
Is Simplifier European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Simplifier as EU-Made.
Where does Simplifier store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Simplifier have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Simplifier?
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: Simplifier 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.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 8 subprocessors 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
- 4 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 1 data 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 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
- 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 simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap community.simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap community.simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap community.simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap community.simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap community.simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap community.simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap community.simplifier.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →