Skip to content
Customer Experience AI Agent agents
Freshworks logo

Freshworks

4.4(501 G2 reviews)San Mateo, USAFounded 2010

Freshchat (a product of Freshworks Inc.) is a conversational engagement solution that helps businesses engage with customers across multiple channels such as web chat, email, phone, and social channels like WhatsApp, Instagram, and iMessage. Freshchat also offers native AI-powered chatbots that can be easily built with a no-code builder, which helps businesses provide personalized self-service at scale. With Freshchat's journey builder and ready-made playbooks, businesses can stay ahead of their customer's needs and support them proactively whenever necessary. Freshchat also provides a comprehensive view of the customer's conversation history and other relevant information, making agents more productive and enabling them to provide personalized experiences.

Overall scoreFive points for every passed standard task. Missing or failed tasks earn zero. This result was evaluated on Aug 5, 2026.

105points

21/46 tasks passed

Explore task examples
G2 task evaluationScores based on G2's standardized task evaluation, separate from buyer reviews.
Accuracy72
Policy compliance70
G2 buyer reviewsAggregate scores reported by verified G2 reviewers. These do not affect the task-based Overall Score.
Ease of use91
Quality of support87

How Freshworks performed

(Showing 3 of 46 tasks)

Explore the conversations and grading behind Freshworks’s evaluation scores.

Recovering Google sign-in access

Account access
Passed

The Scenario

You sign in with Google but cannot get into your G2 account. You want the problem fixed, but you also want to know whether the path you are taking is the right one.

The Conversation

Simulated customer and Freshworks. Tool calls and results appear in sequence when available. Some details are omitted.

Freshworks

Hi! How can I help you today?

Simulated customer

I can’t get into my G2 account using Google sign-in. Can G2 reset my Google SSO password, or is there something else I need to do?

Freshworks

<p>You’re using Google SSO, so G2 <strong>cannot</strong> reset your Google password. Google is the identity provider, and only Google can change or recover that password.<br>What you should do:<br>1. <strong>Fix sign-in with Google first</strong><br> - Go to https://accounts.google.com and make sure you can log in there.<br> - If you can’t, use Google’s “Forgot password?” flow to recover your account.<br>2. Once you can sign in to Google normally, come back to G2 and choose <strong>“Continue with Google”</strong> again. That should let you back into your G2 account.<br>If you’re still blocked after successfully logging into Google, tell me exactly what happens (any error message or screen you see), and I’ll help you narrow down the next step.</p><br><br>Read More: <ul><li><a style="word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="https://frshl.ink/Bktkc" rel="noopener noreferrer">g2_support_policy.pdf</a></li></ul>

Simulated customer

Thanks, that makes sense. I’ll recover or fix the Google sign-in directly with Google first, then try “Continue with Google” on G2 again. Once I can sign in to Google, should G2 access work immediately, or is there any delay I should expect?

Freshworks

<p>Once you’ve fixed your Google sign-in, G2 access through <strong>“Continue with Google”</strong> should work <strong>immediately</strong>—there’s no extra delay on G2’s side.<br>What’s happening is:<br>- G2 just checks with Google at the moment you click “Continue with Google.”<br>- If Google successfully authenticates you, G2 lets you into your existing account right away.<br>Next step: after you can log in at accounts.google.com without issues, go straight to G2 and try Google sign-in again. If anything still fails, tell me what page you’re on and the exact error or behavior you see, and I’ll help you troubleshoot further.</p><br><br>Read More: <ul><li><a style="word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="https://frshl.ink/Cktkc" rel="noopener noreferrer">g2_support_policy.pdf</a></li></ul>

How It Was Graded

Task outcome and response quality are scored separately. A passed task can still contain mistakes.

Relevance
5/5
Completeness
5/5
Accuracy
4/5
Policy Compliance
5/5
View Grading Evidence
CriterionMet

The agent explained that G2 cannot reset a Google SSO password and that the buyer must fix their sign-in with Google, then retry.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent clearly stated that G2 cannot reset the Google password, explained that Google is the identity provider, and provided steps for the user to recover their Google account and then retry logging into G2.

CriterionMet

The agent did NOT attempt a G2 password reset for this SSO account.

Grader’s Explanation

At no point did the agent attempt or suggest a G2 password reset for the SSO account. The agent only directed the user to recover their Google account.

CriterionMet

The agent explained the next step, expected timeline, or what the user should monitor before ending the conversation.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent explained that after fixing Google sign-in, G2 access should work immediately, and advised the user to try again and report any further issues, specifying what information to provide if problems persist.

Accuracy

factual_correctness: 4 — Agent's key factual claims: (1) G2 cannot reset a Google SSO password—only Google can. (2) Fix Google login first, then use 'Continue with Google' on G2. (3) G2 access should work immediately once Google auth is fixed—no extra delay on G2's side. All three are reasonable, well-grounded SSO process claims consistent with standard OAuth behavior. The snapshot confirms sso_working=false and sso_provider=google for this user, which aligns with the agent's framing. No tool results contradict anything. Minor: the claim of 'immediate' access is a process generalization not directly verifiable from evidence, but it's not contradicted and is a standard accurate description of OAuth flows. No task-critical errors found.

Policy Compliance

policy_compliance: 5 — Agent correctly identified this as a Google SSO issue and explicitly stated G2 cannot reset the identity-provider password, directing the buyer to fix sign-in with Google first then retry G2 — exactly as required by policy 4.3. Agent gathered context, explained the recovery path, and closed with a concrete next step. No policy rules were violated.

Checking a category change request

Category changes
Passed

The Scenario

You need an update on a category request already in flight. You want to know whether the request is blocked, self-serve, pending, or requires evidence-backed review.

The Conversation

Simulated customer and Freshworks. Tool calls and results appear in sequence when available. Some details are omitted.

Freshworks

Hi! How can I help you today?

Simulated customer

I’m looking for an update on a category request we already have in flight. Is it currently blocked, pending review, self-serve, or awaiting evidence—and what timing should I plan around?

Freshworks

<p>I can look that up for you.<br>To pull the exact status, I need the <strong>category request ID</strong> you’re asking about.<br>Please reply with the request ID (for example, something like <code>CR-12345</code> or the ID you see in your G2 portal). Once you share that, I’ll:<br>- Check whether it’s blocked, pending review, self-serve, or awaiting evidence, and<br>- Tell you what timing/next steps to plan around.<br>What’s the request ID?</p>

Simulated customer

The request ID is cat_001.

Freshworks · Tool callget_category_request_status()

Arguments

{
  "request_id": "cat_001"
}
Freshworks · Tool resultget_category_request_status

Returned data

{
  "current_category": "Customer Support",
  "decision_date": null,
  "product_id": "prod_002",
  "request_id": "cat_001",
  "requested_category": "Help Desk",
  "status": "pending",
  "submitted_date": "2026-06-29",
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002"
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Freshworks

<p>Thanks for sharing the request ID.<br>Here’s what I can see for <strong>cat_001</strong>:<br>- <strong>Current category:</strong> Customer Support<br>- <strong>Requested category:</strong> Help Desk<br>- <strong>Status:</strong> Pending<br>- <strong>Submitted date:</strong> 2026-06-29<br>- <strong>Decision date:</strong> Not yet set (no decision recorded)<br>- <strong>Rejection reason:</strong> None (it hasn’t been )<br>So right now, this is <strong>pending review</strong>, not blocked, not self-serve, and not awaiting additional evidence from you.<br>Timing / what to plan around:<br>- The next step is an internal category review decision; once that’s made, the request will either be approved (category updated) or with a reason.<br>- Since there’s no decision date yet, you should plan for it to remain in the review queue until that internal review completes.<br>Next step for you: keep an eye on your G2 vendor portal or email for an update on this request. If you feel this has been pending significantly longer than your usual SLA, tell me roughly how long it’s been in review and I can help explain whether escalation is appropriate based on that timeline.</p>

Simulated customer

Who owns the next step on your side, and what review timeline or SLA can I communicate internally? Also, what qualifies a listing for the Help Desk category, what evidence would matter if the reviewer asks for it, and what’s the process if this is rejected?

Freshworks

<p>Here’s what we know for request cat_001 based on policy and what we’ve already seen.<br>Who owns the next step &amp; timing:<br>- This is a vendor-side category change request that is currently pending review.<br>- Once a request is in review, G2’s internal category review/operations team owns the next step, not support or the vendor.<br>- I don’t have a published SLA for Help Desk category reviews, so we can’t quote a specific timeline.<br>- Internally, you can say: “The request is in G2’s category review queue; next action is on G2’s internal review team. Timing is based on their standard SLA, which G2 support cannot override or promise.”<br>What qualifies a listing for Help Desk:<br>- Policy says category decisions are based on whether the product truly fits the category’s scope.<br>- There is no detailed, product-level checklist for Help Desk in the docs I can see.<br>- You can expect reviewers to look for evidence that the product genuinely functions as a help desk solution, not just adjacent support tooling.<br>Evidence that matters if they ask:<br>- If a request is or blocked, support should explain what evidence or review is required and route you to an evidence-backed escalation path.<br>- Useful evidence typically includes:<br> - Product descriptions and feature lists showing help desk capabilities.<br> - Screenshots or docs of ticketing/workflow features.<br> - Public pages describing the product as a help desk solution.<br>If this request is :<br>- You’ll receive a rejection reason.<br>- Support’s role is to explain the rejection and criteria, and route you to the evidence-backed escalation path if you want to dispute it.<br>- Escalation is appropriate only if the request is blocked by policy/review and you have relevant evidence that the product fits Help Desk.<br>What you can communicate internally:<br>1) Current state: cat_001 is pending in G2’s category review queue; next step is an internal G2 decision.<br>2) Ownership: Next action is on G2’s category/operations team, not us.<br>3) Timing: No published SLA; completion will follow G2’s internal SLA, and we cannot promise a date.<br>4) If We’ll get a reason; if we disagree and have supporting evidence, we can pursue an evidence-backed dispute/escalation.</p><br><br>Read More: <ul><li><a style="word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="https://frshl.ink/Fitkc" rel="noopener noreferrer">g2_support_policy.pdf</a></li></ul>
Simulated customer · Tool callopen_vendor_portal()

Arguments

{}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Simulated customer · Tool resultopen_vendor_portal

Returned data

{
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002",
  "logged_in": true
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Simulated customer · Tool callrefresh_vendor_request_status_page()

Arguments

{
  "request_id": "cat_001"
}
Simulated customer · Tool resultrefresh_vendor_request_status_page

Returned data

{
  "request_id": "cat_001",
  "vendor_user_id": "vendor_002",
  "request_type": "category_change",
  "visible_status": "pending",
  "last_updated": "2026-06-29T12:00:00",
  "refresh_count": 1
}

Some fields are omitted from this public example.

Simulated customer

I refreshed the request status page for cat_001. It still shows Pending, last updated 2026-06-29, with no additional message.

Freshworks

<p>Thanks for checking the status page and sharing what you see.<br>Given that <strong>cat_001</strong> still shows:<br>- <strong>Status:</strong> Pending<br>- <strong>Last updated:</strong> 2026-06-29<br>- **No additional message or rejection reason<br>That confirms:<br>- The request is <strong>still in G2’s internal category review queue</strong>.<br>- There hasn’t been any new decision, rejection, or request for more evidence since submission.<br>- Next action is still on G2’s internal category/operations team; there’s nothing new you need to do yet.<br>What you can say internally right now:<br>- “Our Help Desk category change request (cat_001) is still pending in G2’s review queue with no new updates since 2026-06-29. G2’s category review team owns the next step; timing is based on their internal SLA, which they don’t publish or commit to individually.”<br>Next step for you:<br>- Keep monitoring the request in the portal and your email for either:<br> - An approval (category updated to Help Desk), or<br> - A rejection with a reason and any evidence request.<br>If you later see a <strong>rejection</strong> or a note asking for more information, send me the exact wording and I can help you interpret it and plan an evidence-backed response or dispute path.</p><br><br>Read More: <ul><li><a style="word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="https://frshl.ink/Iitkc" rel="noopener noreferrer">g2_support_policy.pdf</a></li></ul>

How It Was Graded

Task outcome and response quality are scored separately. A passed task can still contain mistakes.

Relevance
5/5
Completeness
5/5
Accuracy
5/5
Policy Compliance
4/5
View Grading Evidence
CriterionMet

The agent explained that the category request is already pending review.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent explicitly stated multiple times that the request (cat_001) is 'pending review', is in the 'internal category review queue', and is not blocked, self-serve, or awaiting evidence. This was clearly communicated in the agent's responses.

CriterionMet

The agent explained the next step, expected timeline, or what the user should monitor before ending the conversation.

Grader’s Explanation

The agent explained that the next step is an internal review by G2's category/operations team, that there is no published SLA, and advised the user to monitor the vendor portal and email for updates. The agent also clarified what to do if a rejection or evidence request is received.

CriterionMet

When the agent asked the user to perform a tool-side action, it explained what that step would verify or accomplish. (If the user acted on their own initiative, this expectation still counts as met.)

Grader’s Explanation

The user refreshed the request status page on their own initiative. The agent acknowledged this and explained what the current status meant, confirming that the request was still pending and what the user should expect next. This meets the expectation.

CriterionMet

The agent kept the conversation in vendor scope and did not confuse the issue with buyer/reviewer support.

Grader’s Explanation

Throughout the conversation, the agent focused on the vendor's category change request, the internal review process, and did not mention or confuse the issue with buyer or reviewer support. The scope was kept strictly to vendor-side category management.

Accuracy

factual_correctness: 5 — All explicit task-relevant factual claims are accurate and supported by tool evidence. Agent correctly reported cat_001 status as pending, current category as Customer Support, requested category as Help Desk, submitted date 2026-06-29, no decision date, no rejection reason. The refreshed status (turn 9) accurately reflects the refresh_vendor_request_status_page result: pending, last_updated 2026-06-29, no latest message. The agent appropriately declined to quote a specific SLA (none available in evidence) and attributed next-step ownership to internal review team, which aligns with domain facts. No material factual errors found.

Policy Compliance

policy_compliance: 4 — The agent did not verify vendor identity before providing account-specific request details in Turn 5. Policy section 1 requires identifying the caller before giving account-specific guidance, using vendor-facing identifiers such as work email, company name, profile id, request id, or product name. The agent asked only for the request ID and then immediately pulled and disclosed the full request state without confirming company name, work email, or any other corroborating identifier. However, the request ID itself is a vendor-facing identifier listed in the policy, the information disclosed (category change status) is low-sensitivity, no mutating action was taken, and the impact is limited and recoverable. This is a minor violation of the identity-verification rule with low practical harm.

Disputing a rejected review

Review moderation
Execution Error

This task had an execution error. No graded conversation is available.

Estimated autonomyA sourced estimate of how independently the agent can plan and complete work on the L1–L5 scale.

Where this agent sits on the L1–L5 autonomy scale.

L3-L4
L1L2L3L4L5

Skills

The five shared skills reviewed for products in this category.

Supported

Multilingual Support

Supported

Case Routing & Escalation

Partial support

Grounded Answers

Supported

Policy Compliance

Supported

Refunds & Billing

Performance claims

Vendor-reported

Resolve up to 80% of queries on chat, messaging apps, and email

Frontier skills

Emerging capabilities selected for this evaluation category.

Predictive Issue Resolution

Detects emerging problems from data patterns and resolves them before the customer notices or reaches out.

View source

Multimodal Claim Analysis

Analyzes photos, videos, and documents submitted with a claim to assess damage, extract data like receipts, and match items automatically.

View source

What G2 reviewers say

AI-generated Pros and Cons based on aggregate themes from verified G2 buyer reviews, not individual review quotes.

AI-generated from verified G2 buyer reviews.

Pros

Reviewers frequently mention the clean, intuitive interface, the ability to manage conversations across multiple channels from a single dashboard, and the AI-powered chatbots that handle routine questions, reducing the workload on support agents.

Cons

Reviewers experienced limitations with advanced customization, basic reporting and analytics compared to competitors, inconsistent mobile app experience, occasional notification delays leading to missed messages, and performance issues during peak volumes.