whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

Airtable

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Formagrid, Inc. · www.airtable.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 Enterprise Architect

Weighted verdict

Buys for two hundred seats and answers for it later. Optimizes for SSO/SCIM, permissions, audit trails, certifications and a clean exit. Rejects anything that cannot survive procurement.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Enterprise Architect

Collaboration depth

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.

Report an error

The Enterprise Architect

Multi-person work is evidenced as shared bases with real permission hygiene — fine-grained RBAC, collaborator permissions, domain-restricted share links, and guest access via Portals — but nothing in the evidence evidences assignments, comments, dependencies, timelines or any team-level planning view. That's shared data, not shared planning; I'm interpolating between rubric level 3 and 5. 1 2 4

Report an error

Reporting

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.

Report an error

The Enterprise Architect

The only answer-this-question artifacts are change trails — audit logs and record-level revision history — which serve compliance review, not work insight; there is zero evidence of progress, time, budget or utilization reporting, dashboards, or any export path. rubric level 0 with a single point of credit for the audit trail I can hand to internal audit. 1 4

Report an error

Integrations

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.

Report an error

The Enterprise Architect

A real API is evidenced by tiered call quotas (1,000 free to unlimited Business+), an Enterprise API, automations with metered runs, two-way sync and an App Library, plus IDP-synced groups which matters for my 200-seat identity story. But no native Slack/Teams, calendar or file-storage connectors are evidenced, no webhooks, and no import path from competitors — the common-set half of rubric level 5 is missing. 2 1

Report an error

Onboarding effort

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.

Report an error

The Enterprise Architect

A genuine self-serve free tier with 5 editors, 100 automation runs and AI credits means a team can start without a sales call or payment details. The evidence is silent on guided setup, templates and importers, so I can't credit rubric level 8 territory — a working day-one is plausible, minutes-to-value is unproven. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Enterprise Architect

Formagrid Inc. is a San Francisco entity with Article 27 reps in Cork, London and Zurich, EU residency is an opt-in not a contractual default, and AI models run in Airtable's AWS environment — textbook CLOUD Act reach. The paperwork is genuinely strong (self-service DPA, SCCs, ISO 27001/27701, SOC 2 Type 2, public subprocessor list), which lifts it above rubric level 3's compliance-theater, but a US owner on a US hyperscaler with uncontracted EU residency caps it between rubric level 3 and 5. 3 4 1

Report an error

Support & documentation

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.

Report an error

The Enterprise Architect

The only support surfaces evidenced are paid professional services for qualified Business/Enterprise buyers and security-issue channels (HackerOne, security@) — no help center, no docs, no support channels per plan, no SLAs, no changelog. For a 200-seat rollout I cannot evidence that a stuck user gets unstuck at all; rubric level 0 territory with a point for the security reporting path. 2 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The Enterprise Architect

Self-serve tiers are fully priced with both billing periods stated side by side ($20/$24 Team, $45/$54 Business) and even add-ons are priced (Portals from $120–150), which is honest. But the Enterprise Scale tier is 'custom pricing' while doing decisive work — SAML SSO is Enterprise-only, alongside EKM, HyperDB and the Enterprise API — and tax treatment is never stated, so the real number for my deployment is undiscoverable short of a sales call. 2 4

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified 0/2 pts 1 Report an error

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about Airtable? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (14)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security page www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap support.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap support.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Reporting — found from sitemap www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Reporting — found from sitemap www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations — found from sitemap www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations — found from sitemap support.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap support.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap support.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Support & documentation — found from sitemap support.airtable.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →