Workflow Management
Synesty
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Synesty GmbH · synesty.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.
Synesty at a glance
- Vendor
- Synesty GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Germany source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Synesty 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Synesty Studio is a cloud-based no-code and low-code integration platform (iPaaS) for German e-commerce and ERP stacks, and the bench scores it strongest on integrations and connectors (4 to 5): judges credited named connectors such as Shopify, Shopware, Plentymarkets, Billbee, Kaufland and Tradebyte, action-shaped steps like GetOrders and UpdateStock, a generic API-connector tool for HTTP and file interfaces, and webhooks. 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
Synesty Studio is a cloud-based no-code and low-code integration platform (iPaaS) for German e-commerce and ERP stacks, and the bench scores it strongest on integrations and connectors (4 to 5): judges credited named connectors such as Shopify, Shopware, Plentymarkets, Billbee, Kaufland and Tradebyte, action-shaped steps like GetOrders and UpdateStock, a generic API-connector tool for HTTP and file interfaces, and webhooks. It is weakest on run reliability (1 to 2) and process design, where scores cluster at 2: the pages state that processing steps stay traceable and documented, but judges found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting or a status page, nor on approvals, forms, human tasks or versioning of running flows. Judges split on sovereignty (3 to 4) — the vendor's pages state exclusively-Germany hosting, while the independently sourced record leaves data residency, ownership and subprocessors unconfirmed — and on pricing transparency (2 to 4), where the billing unit is defined but no tier prices appear on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- Named e-commerce and marketplace connectors — Shopify, Shopware, Amazon Seller Central, eBay, Kaufland, Billbee, Plentymarkets, Tradebyte — with action-shaped steps such as GetOrders, UpdateStock and ExcelWriter
- A generic API-connector tool for HTTP and file interfaces when no add-on exists, plus webhooks and external URL triggering
- Server location stated as exclusively Germany, with all data stored in a data centre in the EU in Germany
- A ZIP backup of all configurations (projects, flows) downloadable from the account area and automatable via a flow
- Stated data ownership with export, correction and deletion of data, and reliable deletion on termination except where law requires retention
Held against it
- We found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting, execution-history retention or a status page (run reliability 1 to 2)
- We found no public information on approval steps, forms, human tasks, deadlines, escalation or versioning of running flows (process design scores cluster at 2)
- We found no public information on SSO, where connection credentials are stored, an audit log of changes or execution-payload retention (governance and audit 2 to 3)
- We found no public information on a subprocessor list or on where the ChatGPT/OpenAI building blocks process prompts (sovereignty 3 to 4)
- We found no public information on connectors to named ERP or accounting systems such as SAP or DATEV
Best for
- You move mass data between German shop, marketplace and multi-channel systems such as Shopify, Shopware, Plentymarkets, Billbee, Kaufland and Tradebyte — integrations and connectors scored 4 to 5
- You must cover HTTP and file interfaces beyond the ready-made add-ons — generic API-connector tools and external URL triggering are documented
- You want your configurations portable — a ZIP backup of all projects and flows, automatable via a flow
- You have complex transformation steps — Freemarker scripting is documented for requirements the drag-and-drop steps do not cover
Avoid if
- You need humans in the loop — approvals, forms, deadlines and escalation — since process design scores cluster at 2 and the judges characterise the tool as machine-to-machine data movement
- You rely on unattended nightly runs — run reliability scores cluster at 1 to 2 and we found no public information on retries or failure alerting
- Your rollout needs works-council review — governance and audit scored 2 to 3 and we found no public information on an audit log, SSO or retention periods to review
- You need self-hosting or an on-premise deployment — the captured pages describe a cloud platform with hosting exclusively in Germany
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 1 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 2 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 1 of 5 |
| Governance, credentials & audit trail | 1.5 of 5 |
| Hosting options & portability | 2 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
The pages show a visual drag-and-drop builder where every flow has steps and can start on a schedule, via API, manually, or with pause windows — but not one word on approval steps, human tasks, forms, deadlines, escalation or substitutes. This is data-flow automation between shop systems rather than an approval process, and I found no public information on versioning of a running process, so I cannot tell whether changing a flow breaks the forty requests already in flight. 1 2
The Integration Engineer
The visual drag-and-drop builder with step chaining, subflow triggers and Freemarker scripting covers data-flow automation well, but this is machine-to-machine data movement: we found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles, deadlines, escalation or versioning of a flow that is already running. A buyer who needs humans in the loop has nothing captured here to judge. 1 2
The Operations Analyst
Synesty Studio is a visual drag-and-drop flow builder with scheduled, API-triggered and manually started flows, sub-flow calls and a scripting language for complex cases — solid for data pipelines. We found no public information on approval steps with roles and substitutes, forms for human participants, deadlines with escalation, or versioning of a process that is already running, which is what a month-end process with human checkpoints needs. 1 2
The Head of IT
A visual drag-and-drop builder with steps, Freemarker scripting, scheduling and flow-to-flow calls is more than linear trigger-action chains. But I found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles or substitutes, deadlines, escalation, or versioning of a process that is already running — for anything involving a human decision this is not the right class of tool as evidenced. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pages show a visual drag-and-drop builder with scheduled, API-triggered and manual runs and flow-to-flow calls, but I found no public information on human approval steps, forms, substitutes, deadlines or escalation, and no versioning of processes already running. An approval trail is exactly what a works council will ask about, and none is described. 1 2
The Skeptic
A visual drag-and-drop builder chains data-flow steps with scheduling, pause windows and Freemarker scripting for the hard parts, but everything documented runs machine-to-machine. We found no public information on forms, approval steps, human task inboxes, deadlines and escalation, or versioning of a flow that is already running. 1 2
Connectors, API & on-premise reach
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Reaching the systems a European company actually runs: maintained connectors judged by name rather than count, a generic HTTP and webhook step, custom connectors, and a way to reach systems behind the firewall without opening it.
0 — No connectors beyond email, and no API or webhook step.
3 — A large connector count on a logo wall, with no statement of which actions each supports or who maintains them, and no generic HTTP step.
5 — Named connectors with their triggers and actions documented, including Microsoft 365 and at least one ERP or accounting system common in DACH (e.g. SAP, DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics), a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, and a documented API to start and query workflows.
8 — Custom connectors buildable from an OpenAPI description or code, an on-premise agent or self-hosted runner reaching internal databases and file shares, SOAP and database steps, OAuth handled per connection, and connector maintenance ownership (vendor, partner or community) stated.
10 — Integration is engineered: a versioned public API with a deprecation policy, connector changelogs, rate limits per connector published, event-driven triggers rather than polling where the source allows it, and the vendor maintaining the German-market connectors (DATEV, SAP, ELO or d.velop) itself.
The Process Owner
Named connectors like Shopware, Plentymarkets, Billbee and Tradebyte with concrete step names such as GetOrders and UpdateStock, a generic API-connector tool for HTTP and file interfaces, and inbound webhook triggering are all evidenced. The catalogue leans entirely to e-commerce, though: we found no public information on Microsoft 365, SAP, DATEV or another classic Mittelstand ERP or accounting connection, nor on who maintains each connector or how to reach systems behind our firewall. 1 2
The Integration Engineer
Connectors are named by action — FTPDownload, GetOrders, UpdateStock, ExcelWriter, FlowTrigger — rather than a bare logo count, and a generic API-connector tool plus externally triggered flows covers the long tail of HTTP and file interfaces. The named stack is e-commerce and marketplace (Shopify, Shopware, Amazon Seller Central, eBay, Billbee, Plentymarkets); we found no public information on DATEV, SAP or Microsoft Dynamics connectors, on custom connectors from an OpenAPI description, or on an on-premise agent reaching an internal SQL server without a hole in the firewall. 1
The Operations Analyst
The named connectors cover the German e-commerce and ERP stack (Plentymarkets, Billbee, Kaufland, Tradebyte, Shopware), step-level building blocks like GetOrders, AddOrders and UpdateStock are named, and there is a generic HTTP/API connector plus inbound webhooks. We found no public information on reaching systems behind the firewall, building custom connectors, or who maintains each add-on. 1 2
The Head of IT
Step-level connectors are named concretely (GetOrders, UpdateStock, FTP download/upload, Excel reader and writer), a generic HTTP/API connector tool exists, flows can be started by API and triggered from outside by URL, and German-market systems such as Plentymarkets, Billbee and Kaufland are on the list. I found no public information on connector maintenance ownership, custom connectors from OpenAPI descriptions, or any on-premise agent reaching systems behind the firewall — that last gap matters to me most. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Named connectors for the German e-commerce stack (Shopify, Shopware, Amazon Seller Central, eBay, Kaufland, Billbee, Plentysarkets, Tradebyte) plus a generic API connector for HTTP and file interfaces and external URL triggering are documented, which is solid reach. I found no public information on which actions each connector supports or who maintains it, on any on-premise agent, or on ERP or accounting connectors such as SAP or DATEV. 1 2
The Skeptic
The "200+ Integrationen" figure is a homepage count, though named e-commerce connectors and action-shaped building blocks (GetOrders, UpdateStock, ExcelWriter) plus generic API-connector tools for any HTTP or file interface give it substance, and inbound webhooks and API triggers are documented. We found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains them, or a named DACH ERP or accounting system such as SAP or DATEV alongside the shops and marketplaces. 1 2
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 privacy pages promise that all processing steps remain traceable and documented, which is a start, but that is everything I have. I found no public information on retries or error paths, failure alerts by email or chat, how long execution history is kept, runtime or throughput limits, or a public status page with incident history — for a failure at 3 a.m. that is not enough to run purchase approvals on. 3
The Integration Engineer
The privacy page promises every processing step is documented and traceable, and scheduling with planned pause windows is described, but we found no public information on automatic retries, error paths, failure alerting, searchable execution history with per-step input and output, or a status page. When a nightly order export fails at 3 a.m., nothing captured tells me how I replay or even detect it. 1 3
The Operations Analyst
One privacy-page sentence says every processing step is traceable and documented, and a run is defined as a single flow execution — that is the entire operations picture. We found no public information on retries or back-off, error paths, failure alerts, a searchable execution history, or runtime and throughput limits, so a 3 a.m. failure would stay invisible until someone asks why the invoices are late. 2 3
The Head of IT
The pages promise that all processing steps are documented and traceable, and the monthly inclusive traffic quota is a stated limit — beyond that, silence. I found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting, a searchable execution log with per-step input and output, runtime limits, or a status page; what happens when a run fails at night is not evidenced anywhere. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Only a general statement that processing steps are traceable and documented, plus a defined monthly traffic quota, appear in the captured pages. I found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting, searchable execution history or its retention — so what the log retains of the payload and for how long is entirely unstated. 2 3
The Skeptic
All the captured pages say on failure is that processing steps stay traceable and documented, plus a monthly inclusive traffic quota per package. We found no public information on retries, error paths, failure alerting, how long execution history is kept, runtime or rate limits, or a status page. 2 3
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
Separate workspaces with roles and permissions assigned to individual users are confirmed, alongside data ownership, a downloadable configuration backup and a clear commitment that data can be exported, corrected or deleted. I found no public information on single sign-on, where connection credentials are stored, an audit log of changes, retention of execution payloads, or separate test and production environments with a publishing approval — nothing a works council could review. 1 3
The Integration Engineer
Workspaces separated by roles and permissions assignable per user are documented, which is a real start on team governance rather than one shared login. We found no public information on SSO, where connection credentials are stored, an audit log of changes, separate development and production environments, or the retention period of execution payloads — the last of which a works council will ask about before signing off any automation of employee behaviour. 1 3
The Operations Analyst
Workspaces with roles and permissions per team or customer, plus explicit data ownership and reliable deletion on termination, are the governance facts I can see. We found no public information on single sign-on, where connection credentials are stored and who can see them, an audit log of changes, or the retention period of execution payloads — precisely the points a works council asks when order data flows through the tool. 1 3
The Head of IT
The single governance fact is workspaces kept separate and assigned to users by roles and permissions, which sits at the level of admin and member roles with shared team folders. I found no public information on SSO, where connection credentials are stored, an audit trail of changes, controlled publishing between environments, or how long execution payloads are retained — nothing here a works council could review. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Workspaces with roles and permissions assignable to users for teams and customers are described, and the privacy pages state export, correction and deletion of data. I found no public information on where connection credentials are stored, on any audit log of changes, on execution-data retention, on payload redaction or masking, or on what the platform records about individual users. 1 3
The Skeptic
Workspaces with roles and permissions assigned per user, together with a stated data-ownership position including export, correction and deletion, are the whole governance story here. We found no public information on SSO, how connection credentials are stored, an audit log of changes, separate environments with a publishing approval, or a retention period for execution payloads. 1 3
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
Hosting exclusively in Germany in an EU data centre is stated plainly, and configurations can be exported as a ZIP backup that can even be automated — both points I value. The export format is not documented as readable by any other tool, and we found no public information on a self-hosted or on-premise edition, the engine's licence, or a migration path, so the workflows stay where they started. 1 3
The Integration Engineer
Hosting exclusively in Germany is stated plainly, all configurations can be exported as a ZIP backup that a flow can even automate, and data ownership with deletion on termination is written down. But the ZIP's format is undocumented as a portable form, we found no public information on an API to read definitions and execution history for backup, and no self-hosted or on-premise edition, so the engine never runs anywhere but the vendor's German cloud. 1 2 3
The Operations Analyst
Hosting is cloud-only with the server location exclusively in Germany, and a backup function bundles all projects and flows into a downloadable ZIP that a flow can even automate — a real exit door for configurations. The ZIP's internal format is not described in a documented standard, and we found no public information on a self-hosted edition, so the engine itself stays with the vendor. 1 3
The Head of IT
Hosting exclusively in Germany is stated plainly, and a backup function downloads all projects and flows as a ZIP and can itself be automated by a flow. But the ZIP's contents are not documented as JSON or BPMN, and I found no public information on a self-hosted edition, a published engine licence, or an API to read definitions and execution history — as an exit, an undocumented archive is only half of one. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
It is a cloud platform with the server location stated as exclusively Germany, and a ZIP backup of all configurations (projects, flows) downloadable from the account area and even automatable via a flow. The export format is not documented as a portable standard, and I found no public information on self-hosting, the engine licence, or an API to read definitions and execution history for backup. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Hosting is stated as exclusively Germany in the EU, and every configuration can be pulled out as a ZIP backup that itself can be automated by a flow. We found no public information on a self-hosted edition, the engine's licence, or an API to read execution history, and the captured pages do not say the export contents are in a documented format another tool could read. 1 2 3
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
Execution and storage exclusively in Germany is stated on the vendor's own pages, which I welcome. But the contracting entity and ownership are not confirmed on the captured pages, the subprocessor list is absent, and the ChatGPT building blocks send data to a model provider of unstated location — I cannot tell my data protection officer where a payload copy lands. 1 3 4
The Integration Engineer
All data stored in a data centre in Germany in the EU is stated on the captured pages, which covers cloud execution and log storage. The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, we found no public subprocessor list, and the ChatGPT/OpenAI building blocks send prompts to a model provider whose location and safeguards are unstated. 1 3
The Operations Analyst
All data is stored in a data centre in Germany, stated twice, and the vendor presents itself as Synesty GmbH of Jena — a good start. We found no public information on the subprocessor list or on where the ChatGPT/OpenAI building blocks process prompts, so the AI leg of any flow leaves the evidenced EU perimeter unstated. 1 3 4
The Head of IT
Storage in a data centre in Germany, with the server location stated as exclusively Germany, is more than silence. But the captured pages publish no subprocessor list, leave the contracting entity's jurisdiction unconfirmed, and offer ChatGPT/OpenAI building blocks with no statement of where those model calls are processed, so the chain behind the German data centre cannot be verified. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor's own pages state all data is stored in a datacenter in Germany, but the independently sourced attributes leave the contracting entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessors unconfirmed. ChatGPT/OpenAI building blocks are offered with no statement of where that model provider processes the prompt data or what safeguard applies, and I found no public subprocessor list or DPA covering execution payloads. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The vendor's own pages state exclusively-Germany storage and the legal notice names Synesty GmbH of Jena, while the independently sourced sovereignty attributes still record legal entity and data residency as unconfirmed on the captured pages. AI building blocks send prompts to ChatGPT/OpenAI with no statement of where those model calls are processed, and we found no public information on subprocessors. 1 3 4
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 billing unit is honestly defined — a run is one execution of a flow, with a monthly inclusive traffic quota per base package, and a Flow+ option for exempting very high-frequency flows — that structure I can respect. But the captured pages give me no price figures at all for the Plus or Professional packages, no overage price per unit, and no add-on prices beyond one free introductory training hour, so I cannot compute a monthly invoice from public pages. 2
The Integration Engineer
The billing unit is genuinely defined — a run is a single execution of a flow, traffic is counted monthly against an inclusive quota per base package, and Flow+ can exempt high-frequency flows from the run count. But the captured pages give no price for any tier, no quota sizes, no overage price and no add-on or AI-step costs, so I can name the unit yet not compute the invoice. 2
The Operations Analyst
The pricing page defines the billing unit — a run is a single execution of a flow — and explains the monthly inclusive traffic counted per base package plus the Flow+ option that takes very high-frequency flows out of run counting, which is the kind of metering detail I want. The captured pages give no tier prices, monthly allowances or overage rates, so I still cannot compute what a monthly 5,000-row import loop would cost. 2
The Head of IT
The pricing pages define the billing unit (a run is a single execution of a flow), explain that data volume exchanged per run is counted against a monthly inclusive traffic quota per base package, and document a Flow+ option that takes high-frequency flows out of run counting — real mechanics, not just a number. But no tier prices, overage price per unit or add-on costs appear on the captured pages, so a buyer still cannot compute the monthly invoice from public information I can see. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The billing unit is publicly defined — a run is one execution of a flow — together with a monthly inclusive traffic quota per base package and a Flow+ option that excludes high-frequency flows from run counting. I found no public information on tier prices, allowances, overage costs, add-on or training prices beyond one free hour, so a buyer cannot compute a monthly cost from the captured pages. 2
The Skeptic
The billing unit is genuinely defined — a run is one execution of a flow, monthly traffic exchanged with other systems is metered, and Flow+ can exempt high-frequency flows from run counting. But we found no public information on tier prices, overage rates per run or per gigabyte of traffic, or the cost of AI steps and premium connectors, so the invoice stays unknowable. 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 ⚠ 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 Synesty
Is Synesty European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Synesty as EU-Made.
Where does Synesty store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Germany as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
Does Synesty have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Synesty?
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: Synesty 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.
- 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
- 3 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
- 1 integrations 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
- 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage synesty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page synesty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy synesty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice synesty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →