CRM
Twenty
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Twenty (open source) · twenty.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Twenty is an open-source CRM judged here almost entirely on its pricing page: the evidence records pricing, CSV import/export, a self-hosting option, and a homepage tagline about "building blocks for a custom CRM," and little else. The bench's scoring follows that evidence. Its strongest criterion is pricing transparency: Pro $9/user/month and Organization $19/user/month are published, with -25% yearly, unlimited seats, Enterprise from $50k/year, and a free trial without credit card; judges dock points for unstated VAT treatment. Import, export & exit scores 4-5 on self-serve CSV import/export plus self-hosting. The operational side sits on the floor: pipeline & forecasting and automation are unevidenced, contact & data model rests on marketing copy, and integrations record only CSV. Sovereignty spans 2-4 — the skeptic (2) weighted the empty sovereignty record while the revops integrator (4) credited self-hosting — though the bench computed no disagreements above threshold. Persona-weighted totals run 1.9 to 2.9.
Speaks for it
- Published per-seat pricing — Pro $9/user/month, Organization $19/user/month, -25% yearly, Enterprise from $50k/year — with a free trial without credit card
- Unlimited seats on Pro, Organization and Enterprise tiers per the pricing page
- Self-serve CSV import and export confirmed on Pro, Organization and Enterprise
- Self-hosting option available, so data can live on the buyer's own infrastructure
- Open source with self-hosting leaves the underlying database ultimately the buyer's
Held against it
- No pipeline capability — stages, forecasting, win/loss capture or reporting — is evidenced anywhere in the registry
- No automation appears on the evidence: no triggers, sequences, routing, workflows or email templates
- The only evidenced data path in or out is CSV; no API, email/calendar sync or integration directory is on record
- The contact data model is evidenced only by homepage marketing copy, with no field types, dedupe or merge
- The cloud product has no sovereignty attributes on record — no DPA, subprocessor list or hosting region — and provenance flags the entity as possibly US-incorporated
Best for
- You need published, computable per-seat pricing with unlimited seats and a free trial without a credit card
- You want to self-host an open-source CRM on infrastructure you control
- You want exit insurance: self-serve CSV export on every paid tier plus a self-hosting escape hatch
Avoid if
- You need evidenced pipeline management — stages, required fields, forecasts — that finance can sign off on
- Your process depends on automation: sequences, routing or workflows
- Your reps must connect the CRM to email, calendar or other tools via API or sync
- You must put a DPO-ready cloud contract with a DPA and subprocessor list in front of procurement
The scores
Contact & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Depth and hygiene of the core records — contacts, companies, deals, custom fields, deduplication.
0 — A flat address book; no relations between people, companies and deals.
3 — The standard three objects exist but customization is cosmetic: few field types, no required fields, duplicates accumulate unchecked.
5 — Custom fields across objects, basic dedupe on create, activity history on the record; complex models still need workarounds.
8 — Rich field types with validation, merge and dedupe tooling, relationships beyond the standard model, permissioned field access.
10 — A genuinely modelable system: custom objects or equivalent, bulk hygiene tooling, field-level history — the data model bends to the business, not the reverse.
The Solo Seller
The only data-model evidence is the homepage pitch about 'building blocks for a custom CRM' for technical teams — which to me is a consultant-project warning sign, not proof of field types, dedupe or merge tooling. Nothing confirms even the standard contact/company/deal objects exist. I score what's evidenced, and that's marketing copy. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only evidence about the data model is a marketing tagline about 'building blocks for a custom CRM' — nothing on field types, dedupe, relations, or record hygiene. A contact database is a database of other people's personal data, and this sheet shows me no consent fields, no field-level controls, no required-field validation; I score between the flat address book and the cosmetic-customization anchors. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
The only signal on the data model is the homepage's 'building blocks for a custom CRM' claim — marketing positioning, not capability. Nothing in the registry evidences field types, required fields, dedupe, merge tooling, or relationships beyond contacts/companies/deals; per the anchors, that silence puts this near the flat-records floor. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The only data-model evidence is the homepage pitch about 'building blocks for a custom CRM' that adapts as the business evolves — a claim of modelability with nothing behind it: no custom fields, no dedupe, no merge, no evidenced relations beyond standard objects. 1
The Migrator
The only data-model evidence is marketing copy about 'building blocks for a custom CRM' that 'adapts as the business evolves' — not one word on field types, required fields, dedupe, merge, or activity history. I've been promised 'adapts as the business evolves' before; it usually means I build the model myself and the duplicates are my problem. 1
The Skeptic
The homepage's 'building blocks for a custom CRM' is a pitch, not a data model — the registry confirms nothing about objects, field types, validation, dedupe or merge. I can assume contacts exist because it's called a CRM; nothing else survives scrutiny. 1
Pipeline & forecasting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the pipeline enforces a process and produces reporting a finance department accepts.
0 — A kanban of deals with amounts; nothing is enforced, nothing rolls up.
3 — Multiple pipelines and stage probabilities exist, but no required fields per stage and only canned reports.
5 — Stage requirements, win/loss capture and standard forecast views; custom reporting is limited or an add-on.
8 — Enforceable process (required fields, stage gates, routing), custom report builder, forecast by team and period with quota tracking.
10 — Forecasting a CFO signs: weighted and commit-based views, historical snapshots, attainment tracking, and reporting composable enough to answer questions the vendor never anticipated.
The Solo Seller
The evidence is completely silent on pipelines, stages, win/loss capture and forecasting — I can't run a process the vendor hasn't shown exists, let alone hand its reports to finance. Absence is information, and it lands this near the floor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence is completely silent on pipelines, stages, forecasting, and reporting — not even a kanban is evidenced. Absence of evidence is information here: I cannot credit process enforcement or reporting a finance department would accept. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Zero facts on stages, required fields per stage, win/loss capture, quota tracking, or any forecast view — not even a canned report is named. My team's pipeline discipline cannot be evaluated, let alone enforced, on this evidence, so it scores just above the deal-kanban floor. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Nothing in the registry touches stages, probabilities, required fields, forecasting or reporting — not even a kanban is evidenced. I can't put a marketing sentence in front of a finance department and call it a pipeline. 1
The Migrator
Nothing. No pipeline objects, no stage requirements, no win/loss capture, no forecast view anywhere on the captured pages. A CRM with no evidenced pipeline process is a contacts list with ambition. 1 2
The Skeptic
Total silence on pipelines, stages, required fields, forecasts or reporting — not even a kanban with amounts is evidenced, only that a CRM-shaped product exists. No finance department signs anything on this sheet. 1
Automation & workflows
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Triggers, sequences and routing that remove manual work without a consultant.
0 — No automation beyond email templates.
3 — Simple if-this-then-that on records; no multi-step sequences, no branching.
5 — Multi-step workflows with delays and branching, email sequences, basic lead routing — capped by tier or count.
8 — Full workflow builder across objects with webhooks as steps, round-robin routing, sequence analytics.
10 — Automation as infrastructure: versioned workflows, error handling, per-step logs, and limits generous enough that the feature is not its own upsell.
The Solo Seller
No trigger, sequence, routing or workflow capability is evidenced anywhere in the registry; the only confirmed movement of data is CSV files in and out. That's the floor, full stop. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
No triggers, sequences, routing, or workflow builder appear anywhere in the registry. This scores at the floor anchor: automation capability is unevidenced, so as far as I'm concerned it does not exist. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
No workflows, sequences, routing, or even email templates appear anywhere in the registry. I can't verify the product clears the 'automation beyond email templates' bar, so it sits at the bottom. 1
The RevOps Integrator
No trigger, sequence, webhook, routing or workflow capability appears anywhere in the evidence. Unproven automation is unusable automation in a revenue stack. 1
The Migrator
No triggers, sequences, routing, or workflow feature appears in either captured page. Silence on this criterion is total, and I score what the evidence says, not what I hope the roadmap holds. 1 2
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Two-way email/calendar sync, native connections, and an API that treats external systems as first-class.
0 — No API, no sync; data enters by CSV and leaves never.
3 — One-way email logging (BCC), a handful of Zapier triggers, a read-mostly API.
5 — Two-way email and calendar sync for the major providers, a documented REST API with sane limits, a modest native directory.
8 — Deep native integrations for the revenue stack, webhooks, OAuth apps, API parity with the UI for core objects.
10 — An ecosystem: public API covering everything the UI does, event streams, a marketplace, and sync so reliable the CRM can be the system of record without being the only system.
The Solo Seller
Confirmed ingress and egress is CSV import/export only — no API, no two-way email or calendar sync, no native directory shows up on record. Self-hosting means I could build my own plumbing, but that's my weekend, not an integration. 2
The Data Protection Officer
No API documentation, email/calendar sync, or native directory is evidenced; the self-hosting line on the pricing page says nothing about connectivity. Two-way sync matters less to me than where the data lands, but a CRM that can't exchange data cleanly encourages shadow copies of personal data — and none of that is evidenced here. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
No evidence of email/calendar sync, a documented API, webhooks, or any native directory — the evidence doesn't even mention CSV connectors beyond import/export. A CRM my reps can't wire to Gmail and calendar is a non-starter, and on this evidence I have to assume it doesn't exist. 1
The RevOps Integrator
No API, no webhooks, no two-way email or calendar sync, no native directory — the only confirmed data movement in or out is CSV import/export. For a product aimed at technical teams, the total silence on API parity and sync tells me the CRM-as-one-system story is unverified, not just undersold. 1 2
The Migrator
No documented API, no email or calendar sync, no native integration directory — the evidence is silent on everything this criterion needs. For a product pitching itself to technical teams, an API that isn't evidenced is a strange omission, but I can't credit what isn't on the page. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where other people's personal data actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA.
0 — US entity, US-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad and undocumented.
5 — EU hosting selectable at signup, published DPA and subprocessor list; core processing still touches US entities.
8 — EU entity or EU-default hosting with published subprocessors, consent-friendly fields, retention and deletion controls; residual US exposure named and narrow.
10 — European entity, EU-only processing including subprocessors, deletion that provably deletes — sovereignty a DPO can sign off without a caveat file.
The Solo Seller
For the cloud product there is no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU hosting fact on record, and the provenance itself flags the entity as possibly US-incorporated — unverified is not sovereign. What keeps it off the floor is the self-hosting option: if I run it, my data lives where I put it, under my law. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Zero sovereignty attributes on record: no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU hosting disclosure, and the provenance itself warns the entity is possibly US-incorporated — that fails everything I hold as a floor. The one redeeming fact is self-hosting, which means the personal data never has to touch the vendor's infrastructure at all, so I lift it off zero but no higher until a published DPA and subprocessor hygiene appear. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Self-hosting is a real lever — residency lands in the buyer's own environment — but that's the whole story: no DPA, no subprocessor list, no EU-region statement, and the provenance itself flags the entity as possibly US-incorporated. That's a caveat file, not something I'd put in front of a DPO. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Self-hosting is confirmed available, which is the strongest sovereignty posture a vendor can offer — with open source and your own infrastructure, EU-only processing is achievable by construction. But the evidence records no DPA, no subprocessor list, and flags a possibly US-incorporated entity, so the managed cloud offering as evidenced is nowhere near signable. 2
The Migrator
No sovereignty attributes on record — no published DPA, no subprocessor list, entity unverified — but self-hosting is available, which puts the processing in my rack under my law. That single escape hatch is the only reason this isn't zero; the cloud offering itself is an undocumented black box. 2
The Skeptic
The evidence carries 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no subprocessor list, no hosting region for the cloud product — and the provenance itself flags that the Paris story may cover a US-inc'd, YC-backed entity. Self-hosting is the one honest lever that puts data on your own infra; the SaaS default is an undocumented black box. 1 2
Import, export & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting in with history intact, and out with everything — the anti-lock-in criterion.
0 — Import is a support ticket; export is contacts-only CSV missing notes, activities and files.
3 — Self-serve CSV import with mapping; export covers main objects but drops activity history, attachments or relations.
5 — Guided migration from major competitors, full-object CSV export, API access sufficient to rebuild the database elsewhere with effort.
8 — Complete export (all objects, history, files) self-serve in open formats, import with dedupe and dry-run, no API metering that prices exit out of reach.
10 — Exit as a feature: documented full-fidelity export, migration tooling both directions, and contractual data-return terms — leaving is a weekend, which is exactly why you can stay.
The Solo Seller
CSV import/export is self-serve on every paid tier, and open-source self-hosting means nobody can hold my database hostage — as anti-lock-in goes, that's real. But there's zero evidence of full-fidelity export (notes, activity history, attachments) or migration tooling, so it sits mid-table, not at the top. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Self-serve CSV import and export are confirmed on every paid tier, and self-hosting implies direct database-level access — a decent exit posture. But nothing evidences full-fidelity export of notes, activities and files, dry-run import, or migration tooling, so it sits just above the basic-CSV anchor. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
CSV import and export are self-serve across paid tiers, and open-source self-hosting means the underlying database is ultimately yours. But nothing shows export covers activity history, files, or relations, and there's no guided migration or evidenced API path — anchor-3/4 territory with the self-host escape hatch nudging it up. 2
The RevOps Integrator
CSV import and export confirmed on every paid tier, and self-hosting plus open source means the database is ultimately yours — that's a real anti-lock-in story. But nothing evidences full-fidelity export of notes, activities, attachments or relations, nor migration tooling; CSV-in/CSV-out with an escape hatch is the 3-anchor package. 2
The Migrator
CSV import & export is yes on Pro, Organization and Enterprise — self-serve both directions, no support ticket — but the evidence never says export includes notes, activities, attachments or relations, and no API export is evidenced. Open source plus the self-hosting option is the real exit insurance: if I run it, the database never leaves my control in the first place. 2
The Skeptic
CSV import and export self-serve on every plan plus a self-hosting option is genuinely better exit posture than most vendors offer, and 'building blocks' suggests a technical audience. But nothing evidences that export covers activities, notes, files or relations, nor any migration tooling or API extract — completeness is unproven, so it lands short of rubric level 5. 1 2
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per seat, per month, at renewal — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but the tiers most buyers need are unpriced, or per-seat maths is obscured by bundles, minimums or mandatory onboarding fees.
5 — Most tiers carry real numbers with billing period and VAT treatment stated, but at least one commonly needed capability hides in an unpriced tier or usage-metered add-on.
8 — Every tier priced publicly including annual/monthly split; limits, seat minimums and overage rules stated; only genuine enterprise contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: every tier, add-on, usage meter and renewal rule public, with a calculator or table that makes the invoice at 3 and 30 seats a two-minute exercise.
The Solo Seller
This is the page I wish everyone published: $9 and $19 per user/month with real numbers, yearly at -25%, unlimited seats with no minimums, free trial without a card, and only Enterprise custom. At my three seats the invoice takes ten seconds to compute; unstated VAT treatment is the only thing keeping it off the top. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Per-seat maths is genuinely computable from public pages: Pro $9/user/month, Organization $19, a stated yearly -25%, unlimited seats, and a no-credit-card trial. The Enterprise tier is a custom 'from $50k/year' conversation and VAT treatment is unstated, which keeps it below the full-computability anchors. 2
The Sales Ops Lead
This is the strongest criterion: real per-seat prices ($9 Pro / $19 Organization), unlimited seats, a stated -25% annual split, and a no-card trial — a 40-seat invoice is computable in a minute. It stops short of rubric level 8 because Enterprise is only a '$50k from' floor and VAT treatment and add-on metering are unstated. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Real published numbers: Pro $9 and Organization $19 per user/month, -25% yearly, unlimited seats on all tiers, trial without a card, Enterprise from $50k/year — the invoice at 3 or 30 seats is computable. Docked because VAT treatment is unstated and the evidence never evidences what separates the tiers, and capability limits are as much a pricing fact as the sticker. 2
The Migrator
Pro $9/user/month, Organization $19/user/month, unlimited seats on all tiers, 25% off yearly, trial without credit card — I can compute the invoice at 3 or 30 seats from the page alone. Enterprise 'from $50k/year' is a floor, not a price, and VAT treatment is nowhere stated, so it's not full computability. 2
The Skeptic
Pro at $9/user/month and Organization at $19/user/month with the -25% yearly split, unlimited seats and a no-credit-card trial make the self-serve invoice genuinely computable — credit where due. But VAT treatment is unstated, self-hosting's price or licence never appears, and the ladder falls off a cliff from $19/user to 'Enterprise from $50k/year', leaving everything in between a custom conversation. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | Incorporated in US | 0/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 4 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The excerpt names only the “primary” subprocessors and points to a fuller Trust Center list that was not captured, and no server regions are given for these US-headquartered providers.
- 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.
- 66 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
- 19 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
- 15 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 twenty.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page twenty.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Terms of service twenty.com Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy twenty.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Contact & data model — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap docs.twenty.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →