Project Management & Collaboration
Backlog
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Nulab, Inc. · backlog.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Backlog at a glance
- Vendor
- Nulab, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Backlog 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Backlog, a project management and collaboration tool from Nulab, Inc., earns its strongest marks on integrations: scores cluster at 6-7, a band no other criterion reaches, built on fifteen named integrations, webhooks, a public API, import paths from Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets, and built-in Git and SVN with commits linked to tasks. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Backlog, a project management and collaboration tool from Nulab, Inc., earns its strongest marks on integrations: scores cluster at 6-7, a band no other criterion reaches, built on fifteen named integrations, webhooks, a public API, import paths from Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets, and built-in Git and SVN with commits linked to tasks. Collaboration depth holds at 4-5 on assignments, deadlines, Gantt charts, Kanban boards, built-in documents and a file repository, though the judges found the evidenced planning story stops at the single-project level. The weakest readings are sovereignty, 0-2 with no sovereignty attributes on record, and pricing transparency, 0-2 with no public prices in the evidence. Onboarding effort runs 2-4, with judges weighing the importers and the enterprise-gated 1:1 training differently, as no self-serve signup or trial is evidenced. Reporting sits at 2-3, with Kanban and Gantt views and AI-assisted progress reports the entire evidenced surface.
Speaks for it
- Integrations score 6-7, a band above every other criterion, across fifteen named integrations including Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Drive, Dropbox and Jenkins
- Built-in Git and SVN let developers manage code, review pull requests and link commits to tasks without switching tools
- Real import paths from Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets pull existing work in
- Collaboration depth scores 4-5 on assignments, deadlines, Gantt charts, Kanban boards, built-in documents and a file repository
- An Enterprise bundle pairs Backlog with Nulab Pass and includes personalized 1:1 training
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 0-2, with no sovereignty attributes on record — residency and DPA questions must go to the vendor
- Reporting scores sit at 2-3, with Kanban and Gantt views plus AI-assisted progress reports the entire evidenced surface
- Support documentation scores sit at 2-3, evidenced only by developer API resources and 1:1 training gated to the enterprise bundle
- Onboarding effort scores run 2-4, with no evidenced self-serve signup, trial or templates
- Pricing transparency scores sit at 0-2, with no public prices in the captured evidence
Best for
- You lead a development team that wants built-in Git and SVN with commits linked to tasks
- You are moving existing work from Jira, Redmine or Google Sheets and need real import paths
- Your team already runs on Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Drive, Dropbox or Jenkins and wants those connections native
- You need solid single-project planning — assignments, deadlines, Gantt timelines, Kanban boards and built-in documents
Avoid if
- You must clear European procurement on residency and data processing — sovereignty scores run 0-2 with nothing on record to verify
- You need reporting beyond per-project status; the evidenced surface is Gantt and Kanban views and AI progress reports, and reporting scores sit at 2-3
- You need a fast self-serve start — the only evidenced onboarding help is personalized 1:1 training inside the enterprise bundle
- Your users need documented help from day one — the evidenced support surface is a Developers API resource plus enterprise-gated training
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Collaboration depth | 2 of 5 |
| Reporting | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| Onboarding effort | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Support & documentation | 1 of 5 |
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
Assigning tasks with deadlines is confirmed, and Gantt charts plus Kanban boards give real team-level planning views rather than per-person lists. We found no public information on comments, guest or client access, dependencies, or workload views, so the depth of shared planning beyond those two views is unproven. 1
The Bootstrapper
Assignments, shared Gantt timelines, Kanban boards, built-in documents and a file repository give a second user a real place in the work. We found no public information on comments, workload or capacity views, dependencies, guest or client access, or anything spanning projects — the things I'd need proven before growing past a handful of seats. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Assignments, Gantt timelines, Kanban boards, built-in documents and a file repository carry the shared-project core, and an enterprise bundle with Nulab Pass hints at centralized identity for larger deployments. But we found no public information on comments, dependencies, workload or capacity views, guest or client access, or cross-project permissions — the layer I answer for at two hundred seats. 1
The UX Purist
Assignments, deadlines, Kanban boards and Gantt timelines are right on the page, and built-in shared documents give a team a common place to work. I found no public information on comments, dependencies, workload or capacity views, cross-project rollups, or guest and client access, so the planning story stops at the single-project level. 1
The Integrator
Task assignment, Gantt charts and Kanban boards, plus built-in documents and a file repository, give a genuine shared-project core. We found no public information on comments, guest or client access, workload or dependency views in the captured page, so this stops short of full team-level planning. 1
The Skeptic
Task assignment, Gantt timelines and Kanban boards are shown, which clears shared planning at project level, but we found no public information on dependencies, workload or capacity views, cross-project rollups, or guest and client permissions — the team-level span rests on a single marketing page. 1
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 AI Assistant claims help with progress reports, and Gantt and Kanban views answer basic status questions per project. We found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time or budget tracking, utilization, or any export path. 1
The Bootstrapper
What I can verify is progress visibility: Kanban boards, Gantt charts and AI-assisted progress reports. We found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time tracking, budgets, utilization or exports, so this stays in fixed status-view territory. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The only signals are Kanban and Gantt visualization plus an AI Assistant said to help with progress reports, which sits barely above looking at the board. We found no public information on cross-project reporting, time tracking, budgets, utilization, dashboards or exports. 1
The UX Purist
The page names progress reports as an AI Assistant job and Gantt/Kanban as the way to visualize status, and that is everything I can see. I found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time or budget tracking, utilization, or exports of any kind. 1
The Integrator
What is evidenced is progress as board-and-timeline visualization and AI Assistant language about helping with progress reports. We found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time tracking, budgets, utilization or exportable reports, which pins this to basic per-project status. 1
The Skeptic
The only reporting signal on the captured page is the AI Assistant producing progress reports; we found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time tracking, budgets, utilization, dashboards or any export format, which lands barely above board-watching. 1
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 native catalogue — Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Chat, Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Jenkins, LambdaTest, iCal — plus webhooks, a public API, and genuine import paths from Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets. We found no public information on automation-platform support, and the API is only described as developer resources without documented depth, which keeps this below the top band. 1
The Bootstrapper
Fifteen named integrations — Slack, Teams, Google Chat, OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, iCal — plus webhooks, a robust API with developer resources, built-in Git and SVN, Jenkins, and real import paths from Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets. We found no public information on automation platforms like Zapier or Make, which keeps it a notch below the top of the scale for me. 1
The Enterprise Architect
A real catalogue — Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Chat, OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, Jenkins, LambdaTest, iCal sync — plus webhooks, a described robust public API with developer resources, and genuine Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets importers that double as an entry and exit path. We found no public information on automation-platform coverage or extensibility beyond the API, which is what holds this below the top band. 1
The UX Purist
Fifteen named integrations spanning chat apps, file storage and CI, real import paths from Redmine, Jira and Google Sheets, plus webhooks and a public API — this is the one section of the page that reads dense and real. I found no public information on automation-platform coverage or how far the API documentation actually goes, which keeps it shy of the top band. 1
The Integrator
This is where the page speaks my language: a robust API for custom integrations with developer resources, webhooks, real competitor import paths from Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets, built-in Git and SVN with commits linked to tasks, and a broad native set covering Slack, Teams, Google Chat, Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, Jenkins, LambdaTest and iCal. We found no public information on automation-platform coverage like Zapier or Make, and one captured page cannot show API documentation depth, so I stop just short of the top band. 1
The Skeptic
Fifteen named integrations including Slack, Teams, Google Drive and Dropbox, plus webhooks, Jira and Redmine importers and a "robust" API with developer resources — but that API breadth is a marketing word, and we found no public information on automation-platform support or how much of the product the API covers. 1
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
Competitor and spreadsheet importers mean existing work can be pulled in, and enterprise buyers get personalized 1:1 training. We found no public information on a self-serve trial, whether payment details are required, guided setup, or templates, so the time from signup to first value cannot be established. 1
The Bootstrapper
The only onboarding help evidenced is personalized 1:1 training tied to the enterprise bundle, alongside importers that pull existing work in and AI-assisted task creation. We found no public information on self-serve signup, trial terms, payment details or templates, so I cannot confirm the quick path a small team needs. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets importers and an AI assistant for task creation genuinely lower start friction by pulling existing work in. But we found no public information on a self-serve trial, payment terms, guided setup or templates, and personalized 1:1 training appears only inside the enterprise bundle. 1
The UX Purist
My stopwatch has nothing to start: the captured page shows no self-serve signup, trial, templates or guided setup, and the only onboarding help on record is 1:1 training reserved for the enterprise bundle. The importers are the lone accelerant for a team bringing existing work in. 1
The Integrator
The only onboarding support the page evidences is personalized 1:1 training tied to the enterprise bundle, though the Jira, Redmine and Google Sheets importers would pull existing work in for teams that can reach them. We found no public information on self-serve signup, a trial or its terms, guided setup or templates. 1
The Skeptic
The only onboarding evidence is enterprise-gated personalized 1:1 training and the competitor importers; we found no public information on self-serve signup, a trial and its payment terms, guided setup or templates, so time-to-value for a small team without paid services cannot be judged from public evidence. 1
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
Where the data lives is the first question I ask, and the captured page gives no answer: we found no public information on data residency, the legal entity's location, a data processing agreement, or any subprocessor list. Without a DPA to read before the feature list, this is silence rather than compliance substance, and I can verify nothing. 1
The Bootstrapper
We found no public information on where the company sits, who controls it, where data is hosted, or whether a data-processing agreement exists. Nothing here is verifiable from the captured page, and I do not pay for unverifiable. 1
The Enterprise Architect
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on the vendor's legal domicile or ownership control, data residency, a DPA, or subprocessors of any kind. For a two-hundred-seat European deployment this cannot survive procurement as evidenced today. 1
The UX Purist
No sovereignty attributes are on record — I found no public information on the vendor's legal seat, data residency, a DPA, or subprocessors. Nothing here lets a European buyer verify where the data or the company actually sits. 1
The Integrator
The record carries no sovereignty attributes at all: we found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, ownership control, data residency, a data processing agreement or any subprocessor list. There is nothing here a European buyer could verify residency or legal exposure against. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured page is silent on legal entity location, ownership, data residency, a DPA and subprocessors, so a European buyer cannot verify even the first layer of the stack from public information. 1
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
Developer API resources exist and enterprise customers get personalized 1:1 training, which is real but tier-gated help. We found no public information on a searchable help center, support channels or response times by plan, or a visible changelog, so a stuck user on a lower tier has no evidenced path to getting unstuck. 1
The Bootstrapper
Developer API resources exist and enterprise buyers get 1:1 training. We found no public information on a help center, support channels per plan, response times, SLAs or a changelog — a stuck user on a small plan has nothing I can point to. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The only visible signals are a Developers API resource section and enterprise-gated personalized 1:1 training. We found no public information on a help center, support channels or response times per plan, an academy, a community, SLAs or a changelog. 1
The UX Purist
The only learning surface evidenced is a developers' API resources page, with live training gated behind the enterprise bundle. I found no public information on a help center, chat or email support by plan, response times, or a changelog — a stuck user has no evidenced way to get unstuck. 1
The Integrator
A Developers API section and enterprise-gated 1:1 training are the entire learning surface the page evidences. We found no public information on a help center, support channels per plan, response times or a visible changelog. 1
The Skeptic
A developers API resource and enterprise-only 1:1 training are the entire evidenced support surface; we found no public information on a searchable help center, a changelog, support channels per plan or response times. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
We found no public information on pricing whatsoever — no tiers, no numbers, no billing-period difference, no tax treatment appear on the captured page. A buyer cannot determine any payable cost before talking to the vendor based on what is published. 1
The Bootstrapper
We found no public information on prices, plan tiers, a free tier, seat minimums or billing periods — nothing that would let me predict an invoice for 3 seats, let alone 30. This is the first thing I look for on any vendor, and it is the one I cannot budget from here. 1
The Enterprise Architect
No pricing appears on the captured page — no tiers, per-seat numbers, billing-period differences or tax treatment — so the payable cost for my seat count cannot be determined from the public information shown. We found no public information on pricing anywhere in the capture. 1
The UX Purist
The captured page shows no prices at all — no tiers, billing periods or tax treatment — and I found no public pricing information in the evidence. A buyer cannot size the real cost of this tool before talking to someone. 1
The Integrator
Nothing in the captured page carries a price, a tier name or a billing period, so a buyer cannot determine any payable cost before talking to the vendor. We found no public information on trial terms or seat pricing. 1
The Skeptic
Not a single price, tier, seat term, billing period or tax treatment appears in the captured evidence; we found no public information on pricing, so the real payable cost cannot be determined before talking to the vendor. 1
Questions about Backlog
Is Backlog European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Backlog is based.
Where does Backlog store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Backlog have a free plan?
Yes. Backlog has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Backlog?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates awork (4/5), Kantree (4/5) and Teamwork.com (4/5) highest among the other 60 Project Management & Collaboration products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is awork (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Backlog alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 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 (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page backlog.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →