Project Management & Collaboration
awork
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by awork GmbH · www.awork.com
Project management and resource planning for teams, made in Hamburg.
Compare with Asana → Compare with monday.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
awork is a project management & collaboration tool from awork GmbH, Hamburg-registered, and the bench's scoring puts its strength squarely in integrations — the only criterion with no spread — built on a native catalogue across calendars, storage, comms, billing and PSA tools, Zapier/Make/n8n automation, an open REST API and AI connectors to Google Drive, Microsoft 365, Slack, GitHub and Notion. Sovereignty scores 7-8 on Azure hosting in Frankfurt and Berlin, ISO 27001 certification and a downloadable DPA, held there rather than higher because Chargebee and Intercom transfer under DPF/SCC and help-center search queries may be processed in the USA via OpenAI. Notably, the evidence's own sovereignty attributes still read 'unknown' (3 of 10) while its privacy policy documents the hosting and subprocessors the scoring credited. The weak flank is pricing transparency: no price figure, billing-period split or tax treatment survives into the captures, and Enterprise is contact sales. Reporting is nearly as thin — the only evidenced data-out is tracked time pushed to billing and PSA tools. No split between the judges was large enough to flag.
Speaks for it
- integrations scores 7 at both min and max, on a native catalogue across calendars, storage, comms, billing and PSA plus Zapier/Make/n8n automation, an open REST API and AI connectors
- sovereignty sits at 7-8, with a Hamburg-registered GmbH, Azure hosting in Frankfurt and Berlin, ISO 27001 certification and a downloadable GDPR DPA
- The trial requires no credit card, and clients and freelancers get free access with no extra license fees
- Chat and email support run on every plan, with a Germany-hosted help center offering AI-assisted answers (support & documentation 5-6)
- AI inference is contractually limited to EU/EEA regions and prompts are not used to train general AI models
Held against it
- No per-seat price, billing-period split or tax treatment appears anywhere in the captured pricing pages, and Enterprise is contact sales
- No dashboards, budgets, utilization or report exports are evidenced — the only data-out path is tracked time pushed to billing and PSA tools
- The vendor itself promises 'Get fully onboarded within 6 weeks', with no templates, guided setup or importers evidenced
- SSO/SCIM is available for Enterprise and Enterprise+ only, and webhooks and competitor import paths are unevidenced
- Collaboration depth tops out at 4-5 because assignments, comments, dependencies and cross-project views never appear in the evidence
Best for
- You need a project tool that plugs into a broad stack — calendars, Slack and Teams, billing tools like Xero and sevdesk, PSA sync, plus Zapier/Make/n8n and an open REST API
- Your procurement requires a Hamburg-registered German GmbH with Azure hosting in Frankfurt and Berlin, ISO 27001 certification and a downloadable GDPR DPA
- You work with external clients and freelancers who must access the tool free, with no extra license fees
- Your reporting needs stop at exporting tracked time to billing and PSA tools rather than in-product analytics
Avoid if
- You need published per-seat prices before evaluating — no price figure exists in the captures, and Enterprise, recommended for 100+ users, is contact sales
- You depend on in-product dashboards, budget or utilization reporting — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You expect day-one value — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You require SSO/SCIM on any tier below Enterprise and Enterprise+
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
Free client and freelancer access with no extra license fees is genuinely documented, and the calendar integration copy implies capacity planning, but the evidence never evidences assignments, comments, dependencies or a shared timeline — the collaborative core is asserted by product category, not shown. 1 6 2
The Bootstrapper
Free client and freelancer collaboration with no extra license fees is exactly the guest-access model I want to see, and team-calendar integrations explicitly tied to capacity planning imply a real team-level view. But the evidence is silent on assignments, comments, dependencies and shared timelines, so I can't credit this above solid-shared-projects level. 1 6
The Enterprise Architect
Free client and freelancer collaboration with no extra license fees, plus capacity planning via calendar integration, tell me shared multi-person work is real — but the evidence never evidences dependencies, workload views, cross-project planning, or guest permission granularity, which is exactly what I would need to defend at 200 seats. 1 6
The UX Purist
Free client/freelancer access with no extra license fees and calendar-driven capacity planning are real, but the evidence is silent on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload views and cross-project planning — the load-bearing surfaces of multi-person work. I score what's evidenced, and the evidence stops at shared access plus one planning hook. 1 6
The Integrator
Free client/freelancer access with no extra license fees is real multi-person surface, and the calendar integrations pitch 'much more accurate capacity planning' — but the evidence never confirms the mechanics I'd need to see: assignments, comments, dependencies, workload or cross-project views. Docs are tiered at project level, nothing more. Genuinely collaborative product, but the evidence stops short of rubric level 5. 1 6 2
The Skeptic
Free client and freelancer access with no extra license fees is verifiably on the page, and calendar integration 'for a much more accurate capacity planning' implies a team-level view. But nowhere in this sheet is there a verbatim word about task assignment, comments, dependencies or cross-project views — and I don't award capabilities the vendor forgot to evidence. 1 6
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 evidence is effectively silent on reporting: no dashboards, progress, budget or utilization capability appears anywhere, and the only fragment is tracked times being pushed to billing and PSA tools. Absence is information here — I cannot credit reporting the vendor does not evidence. 6
The Bootstrapper
Time is tracked and exports cleanly to billing tools (Xero, sevdesk, Lexware) and PSA systems, which is one step better than per-project status only. Nothing evidences cross-project dashboards, budget or utilization reporting, or general report/CSV export, so it stays below the standard-reports anchor. 6
The Enterprise Architect
Tracked time exists only as something exported to billing tools and PSAs, alongside an open REST API; there is no evidence of in-product reports, dashboards, budgets, utilization or a clean report export. Time data leaving the tool is not the tool answering my questions. 2 6
The UX Purist
Nothing in the evidence evidences a single report, dashboard, progress view or export — the only data-out path is tracked time piped to billing and PSA tools. That's plumbing for invoices, not an answer surface for 'how is the work going'. 6
The Integrator
Time tracking is confirmed and it flows out — tracked times transfer to billing tools and PSAs, plus a Google Sheets bridge — which is more than a closed board. But no report UI, dashboards, filters, budgets or utilization are evidenced anywhere, so I can't in good conscience reach rubric level 5 on export paths alone. 6 2
The Skeptic
The only quantitative data path evidenced is tracked time synced to billing tools and PSAs — that's finance plumbing, not reporting. No progress, budget or utilization views, no dashboards, no export formats, and the 'Open REST API' is a slogan with zero documented endpoints or metric coverage. 2 6
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
A broad, tier-labeled catalogue (calendars, Slack/Teams, storage, Zapier/Make/n8n, PSA, billing, SSO/SCIM) plus an open REST API and AI-agent connectors to external services — solid, though webhooks and competitor import paths are unevidenced. As DPO I note every connector is a subprocessor surface, and SSO/SCIM is gated to Enterprise tiers. 6 2 4
The Bootstrapper
A genuinely broad native catalogue across calendars, storage, comms, billing and PSA, plus Zapier/Make/n8n automation support and an open REST API, and AI connectors to Drive, MS365, Slack, GitHub, Notion. Webhooks and real import paths from competitors are unevidenced, and SSO/SCIM locked to Enterprise tiers bites at 30 seats, so not a full 8. 2 6 4
The Enterprise Architect
A genuinely broad native catalogue (calendars, Slack/Teams, storage, billing, PSA, Zapier/Make/n8n), a complete SSO/SCIM provider list including Keycloak and Okta, and an open REST API — but webhooks are never mentioned and there is no evidenced import path from competitors, so I stop short of 8. 2 6 4
The UX Purist
A genuinely dense native catalogue — calendars, storage, comms, billing, PSA — plus Zapier/Make/n8n, an open REST API and AI connectors into Drive, Gmail, M365, Slack, GitHub, Notion. Webhooks, competitor importers and API documentation quality are unevidenced, and SSO/SCIM is fenced into Enterprise, so it stops short of the 8 anchor. 2 6 4
The Integrator
This is the strongest surface: a genuinely broad native catalogue across calendars, comms, storage, billing and PSA, first-class automation-platform coverage (Zapier, Make, n8n, OttoKit), an open REST API, and AI-agent connectors into M365, Slack, GitHub and Notion. It loses points on my home turf: no webhook confirmation, no evidence of API doc depth or coverage, and no import path from competitors — so exit and event-driven wiring remain unproven. 6 2 4
The Skeptic
Genuinely broad: native calendar/comms/storage, billing and PSA integrations, first-class Zapier/Make/n8n/OttoKit automation, plus AI-agent connectors and an open REST API. It stops short of 8 because no webhooks are mentioned, no competitor import path exists in the evidence, and SSO/SCIM is ransomed to Enterprise tiers only — a lock-in pattern I dock for. 2 6 4
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
Self-serve trial without credit card is clean and welcome, but no guided setup, sensible-default claims or templates are evidenced, and the vendor itself frames full onboarding as a 6-week undertaking — this is not a minutes-to-value tool by its own words. 1 3
The Bootstrapper
Self-serve trial without a credit card is the right posture for me. But the vendor's own homepage promises 'Get fully onboarded within 6 weeks', and nothing evidences guided setup, templates or importers that would shorten that — that's slower than a day-one project but not a sales-gated implementation. 1 3
The Enterprise Architect
A self-serve trial without credit card is confirmed, but the vendor's own headline promise is 'fully onboarded within 6 weeks', and the evidence shows no templates, guided setup or importers that would shorten that. A day-one first project is plausible but unevidenced. 1 3
The UX Purist
The vendor's own stopwatch reads 'Get fully onboarded within 6 weeks' — by my measure that is an implementation project, not time-to-value. The cardless trial makes signup itself frictionless, but no templates, guided setup or importers are evidenced anywhere in the evidence. 1 3
The Integrator
The trial is cardless and social login gets you in fast, which is the right friction profile. But the vendor's own homepage says 'Get fully onboarded within 6 weeks', and there is zero evidence of templates, guided setup or importers to pull existing work in — nothing supports signup-to-value inside a day. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The no-credit-card trial is the one honest gesture, but the vendor's own homepage says 'Get fully onboarded within 6 weeks' — six weeks to full value is not a tool you spin up over lunch. No templates, guided setup or importers appear anywhere to shorten that, and 'fully' doing the talking suggests heavyweight configuration. 1 3
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 privacy policy answers my first question — where does the data live: Microsoft Azure, Germany West Central (Frankfurt) and Germany North (Berlin) — under a Hamburg GmbH with a downloadable DPA, an external DPO, EU/EEA-only AI inference with DPAs with all providers, no prompt training, and marketing tracking deactivated on paid contracts. 4 5 1
The Bootstrapper
A German GmbH in Hamburg with named representatives and a downloadable DPA, hosting on Azure Germany West Central/North, Stripe Payments Europe for payment, and documented subprocessors — that is anchor-8 substance. I hold it at 7 because Chargebee and Intercom sit under US DPF arrangements and help-center search queries may be processed in the USA via OpenAI, which goes beyond a mere US hyperscaler's EU region. 5 4
The Enterprise Architect
German GmbH in Hamburg with named managing directors, workspace data contractually guaranteed on Azure in Frankfurt and Berlin, ISO 27001, a downloadable DPA and a documented subprocessor set — this survives procurement. It is not 10: Chargebee, Intercom and OpenAI sit under DPF/SCC transfers, and help-center search queries 'may be processed in the USA', so extraterritorial reach is limited, not absent — and the evidence itself concedes ownership is unconfirmed on vendor pages. 1 5 4
The UX Purist
German GmbH in the Hamburg register, workspace data contractually hosted on Azure in Frankfurt/Berlin, a downloadable DPA and named subprocessors with SCCs/DPF — that clears most of the 8 anchor. It stays below it because ultimate ownership is unverified per the evidence's own caveat, and help-center search queries may be processed in the USA via OpenAI, which is more than a hyperscaler's EU region. 1 5 4
The Integrator
German GmbH in Hamburg with named representatives, data contractually on Azure in Frankfurt/Berlin with a downloadable GDPR DPA, and every remaining exposure documented: Chargebee, Intercom and OpenAI (help-center search, USA processing possible) are identifiable, mostly DPF-certified subprocessors. That is rubric level 8 almost verbatim — the unconfirmed ultimate ownership caveat keeps me from going higher, and the US subprocessors rule out a 9. 4 5 1
The Skeptic
The computed 3 in this sheet ignores its own E9: awork GmbH is Hamburg-registered, workspace data sits in Azure Germany West Central/North, the DPA is downloadable, and AI inference is contractually limited to EU/EEA regions with DPAs in place. It stops short of 8 because ultimate ownership is unverifiable on vendor pages (the evidence itself flags this) and the documented US subprocessor tail — Chargebee and Intercom under DPF/SCC, OpenAI processing help-center search queries in the USA, Azure itself — is longer than the single hyperscaler carve-out rubric level 8 contemplates. 5 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
A Germany-hosted help center with AI-assisted answers, chat and email support and published phone lines form a reasonable surface, but phone support sits on Professional/Enterprise plans and nothing evidences docs depth, response times, changelog or an academy. The privacy policy's own candour about support-data handling is reassuring, but candour is not coverage. 4 2 1
The Bootstrapper
A help center hosted in Germany with AI-assisted answers, plus chat & email support and a published phone number, covers the standard-anchor bar. Phone support is gated to Professional and Enterprise plans and no changelog or docs depth beyond the help-center URL is evidenced, so I can't go higher. 2 4 1
The Enterprise Architect
A German-hosted help center with AI-assisted answers, chat and email support across plans and phone from Professional up is a workable base — but nothing evidences docs depth, onboarding guides, a changelog or published response times, and SLAs appear only as 'contact sales' on the Enterprise tier. 2 5 4
The UX Purist
Chat and email support on every plan, phone from Professional up, and a Germany-hosted help center with AI-assisted search — that is the 5 anchor met. No evidence of doc depth, onboarding guides, changelog or response-time commitments, so I cannot credit the layers above. 2 4 1
The Integrator
A help center exists, hosted in Germany, with AI-assisted answers, and chat/email are supported with phone gated to Professional and Enterprise. That lands on rubric level 5 — but I see no evidence of doc depth, a changelog, published SLAs or response times, and for an API-first buyer the absence of any API documentation evidence stings. 4 2 1
The Skeptic
A Germany-hosted help center with AI-assisted answers plus chat and email on all plans clears rubric level 5 — barely. Phone support is gated to Professional and above, and no changelog, academy, template library or published response-time commitment appears anywhere, so I have no proof the learning surface is alive. 2 4
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
Not a single numeric price survives into the evidence: tiers are known only by feature labels while Enterprise is contact-sales for 100+ users, and real cost drivers — the separately booked AI add-on, PSA add-ons, plan-gated phone support — surface outside any visible number, with billing period and tax treatment wholly absent. A buyer cannot determine the payable cost from what is captured here. 2 4 6
The Bootstrapper
Not one per-seat number appears anywhere in the captured evidence — the pricing page yielded plan features, a no-card trial and an Enterprise 'Contact sales' for 100+ users, but no price for any self-serve tier, no billing-period split, no tax treatment. A page that doesn't state numbers doesn't answer, so for me this is nearly a zero; only the free trial and free external collaborators keep it off the floor. 1 2 3
The Enterprise Architect
The tier structure and a no-credit-card trial are public, but the evidence evidences not one euro of per-seat pricing anywhere, and the Enterprise tier — recommended for my 100+ seats and the only tier carrying SSO/SCIM — is pure contact sales with custom pricing. I cannot put a defensible number in front of finance without a sales call, which for me is a 3. 2 3 6
The UX Purist
Tiers and their inclusions are laid out on a public page with a cardless trial, but the capture contains not one price number, no billing-period split and no tax treatment — only an opaque 'Contact sales' enterprise tier. A buyer cannot verify the number on the invoice from this sheet, and absence of evidence is evidence. 2 3
The Integrator
Tier names and structure are visible on the pricing page and Enterprise is explicit 'Contact sales', the trial needs no card — but not a single price figure, billing-period difference or tax treatment appears anywhere in the captured evidence. I cannot compute what a team of ten actually pays from this sheet, which caps it at rubric level 3. 2 1
The Skeptic
Two captures of the pricing page and not one payable number: no per-seat prices, no billing-period split, no tax treatment — only tier names, feature gates, an opaque 'contact sales' Enterprise tier, and a separately-booked AI add-on whose price is stated nowhere. The free trial without card and free guest access tell me what costs nothing, never what anything costs. 1 2 3 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 DE | 3/3 pts | 5 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 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 20 Aug 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. AI-supported features are processed within the EU or EEA but not necessarily in Germany, and Azure Front Door/CDN may briefly process connection data at the nearest server when access comes from a non-EU country.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The contract runs through Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited, the EU subsidiary of US parent Microsoft, and email delivery via Twilio Inc.'s SendGrid likewise runs through Twilio Ireland Limited.
- 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.
- 35 subprocessors 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
- 13 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
- 13 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
- 12 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
- 6 data 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 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
- 5 hosting 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
- 5 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (17)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.awork.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.awork.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal & privacy hub www.awork.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.awork.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 5 Imprint www.awork.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations directory www.awork.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Privacy policy www.awork.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Reporting — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Reporting — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations — found from sitemap developers.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Support & documentation — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 17 Support & documentation — found from sitemap support.awork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →