Project Management & Collaboration
ActiveCollab
UK / wider Europe 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 A51 d.o.o. · activecollab.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
ActiveCollab is a project management and collaboration tool from A51 d.o.o., Novi Sad, Serbia, with three cloud tiers at $12.5 per month (3 seats included), $10 and $15 per user/month, and $3.5 per user/month at 100+ seats. It is strongest on integrations and onboarding effort, both scoring 8–9: a fourteen-day trial with no credit card, sample projects that do not count against plan limits, importers from Asana, Trello, Wrike and spreadsheets, and webhooks with selectable events, filters, a secret header and a test button. Collaboration depth and reporting hold at 8 — task dependencies, a workload view of availability and days off, ten report types with saved presets and CSV export. Sovereignty is the weakness at 2–3: primary storage in Canada and the USA with France as offsite backup only, an operating facility in Serbia outside the EEA, named processors including Google Drive, Stripe, Intercom and Zoom, and no EU region to choose. Pricing transparency sits at 7: cloud prices are public, while for self-hosting only support renewals at $699 and $999 are published. The bench computed no notable disagreements.
Speaks for it
- All three cloud tiers carry public prices — $12.5 per month with 3 seats included, $10 and $15 per user/month — plus $3.5 per user/month at 100+ seats and 50% off for educational institutions and nonprofits
- A fourteen-day trial requires no credit card, with sample projects that do not count against plan limits and importers from Asana, Trello, Wrike and spreadsheets quoted in minutes
- Webhooks are documented with selectable events, project and task-type filters, an optional secret header and a test button, alongside a documented API and an MCP server for AI connections
- Ten report types with long filter lists, saved presets, role-gated access and CSV export cover time, expenses, budgets, payments and invoices
- Live chat and the help center are listed on all plans rather than held back for top tiers
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 2–3, with primary storage in Canada and the USA, France serving only as an offsite backup, and no EU region to choose
- The operating facility sits in Serbia outside the EEA, the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy serve as the data processing agreement, and Google Drive, Stripe, Intercom, Zoom and FastSpring appear as named processors
- Workload management, capacity planning and utilization are listed on the top Pro+ tier, so the deepest planning carries the top price
- We found no public information on the self-hosted license price — only support renewals at $699 and $999 are published
- We found no public information on scheduled report delivery, API access to every metric, or published support response-time commitments
Best for
- You want a self-serve start — a fourteen-day trial with no credit card, sample projects, and importers that bring existing work over from Asana, Trello, Wrike or spreadsheets
- You run client projects and bill for time — time, expense, budget-versus-cost, uninvoiced and invoice reports are documented, with invoicing, QuickBooks and payment gateways on the top tier
- You wire tools together yourself — webhooks with selectable events, filters, a secret header and a test button are documented, with Zapier, Make and IFTTT named
- You are a small team watching price — the entry tier is $12.5 per month with 3 seats included and unlimited clients for free
Avoid if
- You need your data stored in the EU — primary storage is in Canada and the USA, France serves only as an offsite backup, and no EU region can be chosen
- You cannot accept US-headquartered subprocessors or the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy standing in as the data processing agreement — Google Drive, Stripe, Intercom, Zoom and FastSpring are named
- You need workload management, capacity planning or utilization without the top tier — those are listed on Pro+
- You want a dedicated customer success agent at a small seat count — it is listed only above 20 seats on Pro and Pro+
The scores
Collaboration depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How much real multi-person project work the tool carries: shared planning, assignments, dependencies, workload, comments, guest access.
0 — A personal task list; a second user has no defined place in it.
3 — Tasks can be shared and assigned, but planning stays per-person — no shared timeline, workload or dependency view.
5 — Solid shared projects with assignments, comments and at least one team-level planning view; gaps appear in cross-project or capacity planning.
8 — Team-level planning is first-class: cross-project views, workload/capacity, dependencies, guest or client access with sane permissions.
10 — Handles the full span from two freelancers to a structured department in one model — planning, capacity, permissions and client involvement all without workarounds.
The Data Protection Officer
Assignments, comments, discussions, one-on-one and group chat, and distinct client roles are documented, with task dependencies, three task views and free client access on the entry plan. Team-level planning is evidenced too — a workload view showing availability and days off, capacity planning and hiring signals, unassigned-task triage, and cross-project dashboards for opened and completed tasks, estimates versus tracked time and cost versus budget. The deeper capacity, utilization and profitability layer sits on the top plan, which is where a structured department would feel the seam. 2 4 5 7
The Bootstrapper
Workload and capacity views across projects, automatic task dependencies, time-off feeding availability, and client roles with unlimited clients free on the entry plan make the planning surface genuinely team-level rather than per-person. One-on-one and group chat plus project discussions keep communication inside the tool. The captured pages put workload management, capacity planning and utilization in the top tier, so the full span sits one plan up from the entry price. 2 4 5 10
The Enterprise Architect
Task dependencies with automated updating, subtasks, three task views and a workload view tied to each assignee's availability make team-level planning first-class, and five roles including distinct client tiers give client access real permissions rather than a bolt-on guest seat. The Assignment Dashboard aggregates opened and completed tasks, estimates versus tracked time and cost versus budget across selected projects, which is the cross-project span I buy for. One procurement note: workload management, capacity planning and utilization are documented on the top Pro+ tier, so a 200-seat deployment has to land there to get the full planning model. 2 4 5 6 7 10
The UX Purist
Assignments, task dependencies and subtasks arrive in the mid tier, layered with team chat, discussions and genuine client roles (Client, Client+) with client sharing — planning here is shared, not per-person. Workload, capacity and days-off management are first-class but sit only in the top plan, and I found no public information on cross-project dependency views beyond that tier gate. 2 4 5 10
The Integrator
Dependencies with automated updating, subtasks and recurring tasks come in at the mid self-serve plan, and the workload view (their words, a variation of the Gantt view) shows individual availability, days off and capacity, with Client and Client+ roles for guest access and Member+ variants for permissions. Cross-project surfaces like the Assignments Dashboard pull opened versus completed tasks and estimates versus tracked time into one place. The catch is that workload management, capacity planning and utilization are listed on the top plan, so a small team pays the top price for the deepest planning. 2 4 5 7 10
The Skeptic
Shared projects with task dependencies, a workload view showing individual availability and days off, capacity planning, client and member permission roles, and group chat are all confirmed in writing, which clears the bar for first-class team-level planning. My reservation: workload management, capacity planning and utilization are advertised as top-tier features, so a buyer on the lower plans is not getting the full planning picture without paying up. 2 4 5 10
Reporting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the tool can answer questions about the work: progress, time, budgets, utilization — and export the answer.
0 — No reporting beyond looking at the board.
3 — Fixed per-project status views only; nothing aggregates across projects and nothing exports cleanly.
5 — Useful standard reports (progress, tracked time) with basic filters and CSV export, but limited customization and no budget/utilization depth.
8 — Configurable cross-project reporting incl. time, budgets and utilization, with dashboards and reliable exports.
10 — Reporting is a product in itself: custom report builder, scheduled delivery, API access to every metric the UI shows.
The Data Protection Officer
The catalogue is broad and cross-project — time, expenses, budget versus cost, payments, uninvoiced, invoices, estimated versus tracked — with saved filter presets, dashboards, role-gated access to reports, and CSV export on the time and uninvoiced reports. Budget and capacity reporting plus profitability analysis are documented on the reporting pages. We found no public information on scheduled report delivery or API access to every metric the interface shows, which is what separates the top of this scale. 6 7 10
The Bootstrapper
Time, expense, budget-versus-cost, payments, invoicing and capacity reporting are all documented, with long filter lists, saved presets, role-scoped access and CSV export, plus dashboards for time, assignments and the business overview. Utilization and profitability depth is real but concentrated in the top tier. We found no public information on scheduled report delivery or API access to every metric the interface shows. 2 6 7 10
The Enterprise Architect
Ten documented report types — time, estimated versus tracked time, expenses, budget versus cost, uninvoiced, payments and invoices among them — with role-scoped access, rich filter sets, saved presets and CSV export answer cross-project questions on time, budgets and profitability. We found no public information on a custom report builder, scheduled report delivery, or API access to every metric the interface shows, which is what would push this into top-tier territory. 6 7 10
The UX Purist
Ten report types with long filter lists, saved presets, three dashboards and CSV export — it answers cross-project questions about time, budgets and cost, and the answer leaves the tool as a file. I found no public information on scheduled delivery or report-builder-plus-API depth, which is what reporting-as-a-product would need. 6 7 10
The Integrator
The report catalogue is long — projects, tasks, time, expenses, budget versus cost, payments, uninvoiced and invoices — with rich filter lists, saved filter presets, dashboards, role-scoped access and CSV export, plus advertised customized project, workflow and profitability reports. I found no public information on scheduled report delivery or API access to the metrics, which is what the top rung asks for. 6 7 10
The Skeptic
Ten named report types with long filter lists, saved presets, time and budget dashboards, role-gated access and CSV export are documented across the help pages, covering time, expenses, budgets and invoices beyond single projects. I found no public evidence of scheduled report delivery or report access through the API, so this stops short of reporting being a product in itself. 6 7 10
Integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How well the tool connects to the rest of the stack: native integrations, calendar/comms hooks, API and webhooks, import/export paths.
0 — A closed box — no API, no integrations, CSV out if anything.
3 — A handful of marquee integrations, no public API or an API that covers a fraction of the product.
5 — The common set (calendar, Slack/Teams, file storage) plus a documented public API; automation platforms partially covered.
8 — Broad native catalogue, well-documented API and webhooks, first-class automation-platform support and real import paths from competitors.
10 — Ecosystem-grade: everything in 8 plus the tool is itself extensible (apps/plugins, AI/MCP surfaces) and exit via API export is complete.
The Data Protection Officer
Webhooks are unusually well documented — event selection, project and task-type filters, an optional secret header, a test button — and connect to Zapier, Make and IFTTT, alongside a documented API, Slack and QuickBooks apps, Google Drive and Dropbox, read-only calendar export to Google, Outlook and iCalendar, and import from Trello, Asana, Wrike and spreadsheets. An MCP server for AI assistants is offered on Pro. Beyond those names we found no public information on a broader native catalogue, and webhook payloads use a fixed JSON format that cannot be changed. 2 8 9 12
The Bootstrapper
Webhooks are documented down to the event list, per-project filtering, an optional secret header and a test button, with Zapier native and Make or IFTTT reachable through webhooks, plus a documented API, an MCP server for AI connections and real import paths from Asana, Trello and Wrike. The captured native catalogue is a short list — Google Drive, Dropbox, Slack, QuickBooks, PayPal and Stripe — and Slack, QuickBooks and webhooks sit above the entry plan. We found no public information on a native Microsoft Teams integration or an app marketplace. 2 8 9 12
The Enterprise Architect
A documented API plus webhooks with selectable events, project and task-type filters, a test button and an optional secret header, alongside Zapier, Make and IFTTT paths, Slack, QuickBooks and imports from Asana, Trello and Wrike, connect the stack credibly, and an MCP server adds an AI surface. The native catalogue is moderate rather than broad, webhook payloads are fixed-format and outbound-only, and we found no public information on the completeness of API-based export for a clean exit or on SAML single sign-on and SCIM provisioning — the first thing I look for at two hundred seats. 2 8 9 12
The UX Purist
Webhooks are documented like a product — event picking, project filters, a test button, an optional secret header — with a documented API, Zapier, an MCP server for AI, and real import paths from Trello, Asana, Wrike and spreadsheets. The visible native catalogue centers on Slack, Google Drive, Dropbox and QuickBooks, calendar sync is read-only export, and I found no public information showing a complete exit path via API export. 2 8 9 12
The Integrator
The webhook documentation is the best kind: sixteen trigger events, filters by project or task type, an optional secret header, a test button, and named automation services (Zapier, Make, IFTTT), sitting next to a documented API, a Slack app, QuickBooks, Drive and Dropbox, an MCP server for AI connections, calendar import and export via iCal, and real import paths from Trello, Asana, Wrike and spreadsheets. It stops short of ecosystem-grade because webhooks only take data out in a fixed JSON payload, and the captured pages do not show how much of the product the API covers or a complete API-based exit. 2 8 9 10 12
The Skeptic
A documented API, genuinely well-documented outbound webhooks with event selection, filtering and a test button, Slack, Google Drive, Dropbox and QuickBooks, plus real importers from Asana, Trello, Wrike and spreadsheets, cover most of what a stack needs. The native catalogue is thin, webhooks only push data out in a fixed JSON format, and I found no public evidence that API-based export is complete — the MCP server is the only extensibility surface on show. 8 9 12
Onboarding effort
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Time and friction from signup to first real value for a small team, without paid services.
0 — No self-serve path — onboarding starts with a sales call and an implementation project.
3 — Self-serve exists but the first project requires configuration a newcomer cannot judge yet (workflows, custom fields, permissions) before anything works.
5 — A team gets a first project running within a day; trial requires payment details or key steps live behind docs.
8 — Signup to working project inside an hour: guided setup, sensible defaults, templates, trial without payment details.
10 — Minutes to value even for non-tool-people, importers pull existing work in, and the tool teaches its own advanced features as the team grows into them.
The Data Protection Officer
A 14-day trial runs without credit card, sample projects that don't count against plan limits demonstrate real setups, and migration from Asana, Trello, Wrike or spreadsheets is offered "in minutes". Project templates are thorough — create from scratch or convert a project, relative due dates, autosave, apply to existing projects — so a first real project needs little configuration a newcomer cannot yet judge. Assisted and professional onboarding exist as paid options rather than prerequisites. 2 10 11
The Bootstrapper
A 14-day trial with no credit card, self-onboarding as the default path, and sample projects that demonstrate the product without counting against plan limits or seats — that is a real first hour. Project templates with relative due dates, autosave and conversion from existing projects make the second project cheaper than the first, and migration from spreadsheets, Asana, Trello or Wrike is quoted in minutes. We found no public information on a guided setup wizard or first-run checklist, which holds this just below the top. 2 10 11
The Enterprise Architect
The trial requires no credit card, sample projects that don't count against plan limits give newcomers something real to explore, and importers pull existing work in from Asana, Trello, Wrike or spreadsheets in minutes. Project templates with relative due dates and two creation paths cut the first-project cost further; assisted and professional onboarding exist as paid options but the self-serve path stands alone, so I see roughly top-of-class friction here. 1 2 10 11
The UX Purist
Fourteen-day trial with no credit card, sample projects that don't count against plan limits, templates with relative due dates, and migration from existing tools in minutes — a newcomer lands in a populated workspace that demonstrates itself. I found no public information on guided in-product walkthroughs, which is what separates a fast start from minutes-to-value for non-tool-people. 2 10 11
The Integrator
The trial runs fourteen days with no credit card, sample projects that do not count against plan limits and can be reset, project templates with relative due dates, and migration from spreadsheets, Asana, Trello or Wrike described as minutes of work — a team reaches a working project with its old data in place. I found no public information on a guided setup wizard, so the first hour leans on the getting-started help book. 1 2 10 11
The Skeptic
A 14-day trial with no credit card, sample projects that demonstrate use without counting against plan limits, project templates and importers from spreadsheets, Asana, Trello and Wrike give a self-serve path to a working project fast. I found no public evidence that the tool teaches its advanced features as a team grows into them, and complimentary onboarding services are tied to yearly plans only. 2 10 11
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the company and the data actually sit: legal entity, ownership control, data residency, and subprocessor exposure to non-EU jurisdictions.
0 — Non-European vendor, data on US infrastructure under US law, no DPA worth the name.
3 — DPA and GDPR language present, but hosting defaults to the US or ownership sits outside Europe — compliance paperwork over substance.
5 — EU data residency is available and contractually fixed, but the vendor or its controlling owner is non-European, or core subprocessors put data within CLOUD Act reach.
8 — European company under European control with EU-resident data and a public DPA; remaining exposure is limited to identifiable subprocessors (e.g. a US hyperscaler's EU region) and is documented.
10 — European company, European control, EU-only data residency on European infrastructure, subprocessor list free of extraterritorial reach — verifiable, not asserted.
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages name Canada and the USA as primary storage with France only as an offsite backup, and we found no public information on choosing an EU region; the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy are said to serve as the data processing agreement. Named subprocessors put customer data within reach of US-headquartered processors — Google Drive for file storage, Stripe, Zoom, Intercom, FastSpring — and the operating facility sits in Serbia, which the vendor itself notes is not in the EEA, so the only route to keeping data on servers a buyer controls is the self-hosted license. Deletion commitments are concrete (all data deleted within 30 days of cancellation or of a request, support video deleted within two weeks), but they cannot fix where the data lives. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
The captured privacy policy shows primary storage in Canada and the USA with France as backup only, and we found no public information on choosing an EU region; the company operates from Serbia, outside the EEA, and US-headquartered processors such as Google, Zoom and Stripe appear in the chain. GDPR language is present — an Article 28 reference, deletion timelines, a portability right — with the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy serving as the data processing agreement. Self-hosting is the only evidenced route to keeping data on my own servers. 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
Primary storage is in Canada and the USA with only an offsite backup in France, the vendor states its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy serve as the data processing agreement, and the operating facility sits in Serbia, outside the EEA, with Google Drive, Zoom, Stripe and Intercom among the named processors. The self-hosted license is the only documented route to keeping data on our own servers — without it, this would not survive a European procurement review, and even with it I am carrying the integration burden myself. 3 4 6
The UX Purist
GDPR language and an Article 28-style arrangement exist, but cloud hosting defaults to the USA and Canada with France only as offsite backup, no EU region to choose, and the company sits in Serbia outside the EEA; Google, Zoom, Intercom and Stripe appear as US-headquartered processors. Self-hosting is the only evidenced route to keeping data on infrastructure the buyer controls. 3 4
The Integrator
The captured privacy policy puts primary storage in Canada and the USA with an offsite backup in France, we found no public information on a selectable EU region for the cloud product, and the terms and privacy policy themselves serve as the data processing agreement, with Google Drive and Zoom among the named processors. The operating entity is Serbian — outside the EEA — and the pages name ActiveCollab, Inc without confirming jurisdiction or ownership. The self-hosted license is the only path that keeps data on infrastructure you control. 3 4
The Skeptic
GDPR language and an Article 28 arrangement exist, but the captured pages point to an operating facility in Serbia — outside the European Economic Area — whose cloud stores personal data primarily in Canada and the USA with only an offsite backup in France, and no EU region a buyer can choose. The subprocessor list adds Google, Stripe, Intercom and Zoom, all within US legal reach, the Terms and Privacy Policy simply double as the data processing agreement, and a self-hosted license is the only path to keeping data on one's own servers. 3 4
Support & documentation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a stuck user gets unstuck: docs quality, support channels and their availability per plan, and the health of the learning surface.
0 — No docs beyond marketing pages; support is a contact form that may answer.
3 — Docs exist but are thin or stale; support on entry plans is effectively email-only with slow turnaround.
5 — Searchable help center covering the core product; chat or email support on all plans with reasonable response times.
8 — Deep, current docs incl. onboarding guides and templates; fast chat support not gated to top tiers; visible changelog.
10 — Docs, academy, community and support so good they are a reason to buy; SLAs published, support quality independent of plan.
The Data Protection Officer
The help center spans the whole product in depth — getting started, reports, webhooks, project templates, self-hosted support — and live chat plus the help center are on every plan rather than gated to top tiers. There is a community, categorized contact routes (direct help, feature suggestions, bug reports), a dedicated privacy contact, and refreshingly explicit self-hosted support exclusions. We found no public information on response-time commitments or a visible changelog. 2 6 12 13
The Bootstrapper
The help center runs deep — step-by-step books on reports, webhooks, project templates and getting started — and live chat is listed on every plan rather than held back for top tiers, with a community and categorized contact routes on top. Self-hosted support terms, exclusions and renewal prices are published openly, which I value. We found no public information on a visible changelog, published SLAs or response-time commitments. 2 9 11 12 13
The Enterprise Architect
The help center covers core product, mobile, integrations and self-hosted with current step-by-step books on reports, webhooks and getting started, and live chat ships on all plans rather than being gated to the top tiers. A dedicated customer success agent appears only above 20 seats on Pro and Pro+, and we found no public information on published response-time SLAs or a visible changelog, so this is strong but not a reason to buy on its own. 2 7 9 12 13
The UX Purist
Live chat on every plan, a help center deep enough to carry step-by-step books for templates, reports and webhooks, a user community, and honestly published self-hosted support boundaries. I found no public information on response-time commitments or a visible changelog, which keeps it off the top rung. 2 9 12 13
The Integrator
The help center runs deep — step-by-step books on project templates, webhooks and the full report set including role-by-role access — and live chat is listed on every plan rather than held back for top tiers, with community circles and categorized contact routes alongside. I found no public information on a visible changelog or published support SLAs, which is what separates this from the top rung. 2 6 7 9 12
The Skeptic
The help center runs deep — full books on reports, webhooks, templates, getting started and self-hosted installs — and live chat is listed on every plan rather than held back for top tiers. I found no public evidence of a visible changelog or published response-time commitments, and the dedicated customer success agent only appears above 20 seats on the upper plans. 2 9 12 13
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Can a buyer determine the real, payable cost of the tool for their team before talking to anyone?
0 — No public pricing at all — every number sits behind "contact sales".
3 — Some tiers are public, but a deciding factor (seat minimums, mandatory add-ons, billing-period surcharge, tax treatment) only surfaces at checkout or in fine print.
5 — Self-serve tiers are publicly priced and the billing-period difference is stated, but the headline number still needs qualifying — e.g. annual-only headline, taxes excluded without saying so, or an opaque enterprise tier doing real work.
8 — Every self-serve tier is fully priced with billing periods and tax treatment plain on the page; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Every tier including enterprise has a public price or published price formula, and the headline number is the number on the invoice.
The Data Protection Officer
All three cloud plans carry public numbers — Plus at $12.5 per month with 3 seats included, Pro at $10 per user/month, Pro+ at $15 per user/month — plus a published 100+ seat rate of $3.5 per user/month, an up-to-17% yearly saving and a 50% education and nonprofit discount, with the billing-period difference stated, though it changes storage between 100GB monthly and 125GB yearly. We found no public information on tax treatment or on the price of the self-hosted license itself; only its support renewals are priced, at $699 within 14 days of expiry and $999 after. A buyer can price the cloud product before talking to anyone, but not the self-hosted one. 2 13
The Bootstrapper
Every cloud tier carries a public number — $12.5 per month with 3 seats included on the entry plan, $10 per user/month on Pro, $15 per user/month on Pro+, $3.5 per user/month at 100+ seats — with the seat matrix showing caps rather than minimums, and a 14-day trial that asks for no credit card. The yearly saving is stated only as "up to 17%" and we found no public information on tax treatment, so the headline number still needs a small qualifying step. Self-hosted support renewals at $699 and $999 are published outright, which I respect. 1 2 13
The Enterprise Architect
All three cloud tiers are priced exactly — $12.5 per month with 3 seats included on Plus, $10 per user/month on Pro, $15 per user/month on Pro+, and a published 100+ seat price of $3.5 per user/month that directly matters at my scale. The billing-period difference appears only as "save up to 17%", we found no public information on tax treatment, and the captured pages show self-hosted support renewals at $699 and $999 while we found no public information on the self-hosted license price itself. 2 13
The UX Purist
All three cloud tiers carry plain monthly prices — "$12.5 Per month 3 seats included", "$10 Per user/month", "$15 Per user/month" — plus a public 100+ seat rate of "$3.5 Per user/month" and a trial with no card. The yearly saving is stated only as "up to 17%", tax treatment is not shown, storage differs by billing period (100GB monthly vs 125GB yearly), and I found no public price for the self-hosted license itself. 1 2 13
The Integrator
Every self-serve tier carries a public dollar figure — the small-team plan at $12.5 per month with three seats included, the middle and top plans at $10 and $15 per user per month, a $3.5 per-user rate above 100 seats, and 50% off for educational institutions and nonprofits — with the billing-period difference stated as saving up to 17% yearly and storage spelled out per period. The captured pages say nothing about tax treatment, and the self-hosted option shows no public license price, only support renewal figures of $699 and then $999 for a year. 1 2 13
The Skeptic
All three self-serve tiers carry public prices, the billing-period difference is stated as a yearly saving of up to 17%, and a 100+ seat rate plus a nonprofit discount are published. The wrinkles: the same tier buys 100GB of storage on a monthly plan and 125GB on a yearly plan, the discount is only "up to" a figure with no per-tier math, and I found no public information on tax treatment; the self-hosted license price also never appears on the captured pages, only its $699 and $999 support renewals after year one. 2 13
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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | US by default ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 11 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 — Ownership, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Canada is listed as a primary location alongside the USA, France serves only as an offsite backup, and no EU region can be chosen; the self-hosted license is the only way to keep data on one's own servers.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The list names no hosting provider, and Google (Google Drive, used for file storage of customer-care data) and Zoom (support video calls) appear as further US-headquartered processors, while MailChimp, Google Analytics, Meta Ads Manager and RB2B serve marketing only.
- 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.
- 15 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
- 11 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
- 7 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
- 6 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
- 4 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
- 2 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 activecollab.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page activecollab.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy activecollab.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reporting — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reporting — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Support & documentation — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap activecollab.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →