Project Management & Collaboration
Basecamp
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by 37signals, LLC · basecamp.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
Basecamp, a project management product from 37signals LLC of Oak Park, Illinois, scored strongest on integrations and onboarding effort: judges credited API v3 with OAuth, Zapier at 750+ apps, a free 1-project plan, a 30-day trial with no credit card, and a 3-minute tour. Sovereignty is the weakest surface: the privacy policy says products are 'primarily housed in the United States', judges found no public information on an EU residency option, and the DPA comes on request by email to the security team. Collaboration depth scores sit at 5 with no spread — shared projects are real, but judges found no public information on dependencies, workload views or guest permissions. Reporting holds at 4-5, with dashboards and Excel export arriving through third-party add-ons such as Bridge24 and CData; support documentation sits at 6-7 on free classes and a free learning library. The genuine split is pricing transparency: flat, seat-free arithmetic — Studio at $59/mo, $300/month total — earned 7s, while missing Freelancer and Pro prices, unmentioned tax treatment and the no-downgrade-to-free rule drove a 4.
Speaks for it
- Seat-free pricing with Studio at $59/mo and the Unlimited Edition at $300/month total, unlimited users from Studio upward
- A free 1-project plan and 30-day trials with no credit card, and prorated refunds on annual cancellation
- Integrations scored 7-8 for API v3 with OAuth, Zapier at 750+ apps, and Unito sync with Jira, Trello, Asana and GitHub
- Onboarding effort scored 7-8 on a free plan, a 3-minute tour, free live classes and a free learning library
- No data breaches to date, 99.99% uptime, and published CAIQ v4.1 and HECVAT self-assessments
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 2-3: the privacy policy says products are 'primarily housed in the United States' and judges found no public information on an EU residency option
- Collaboration depth scored 5 with no spread for a single-project model — we found no public information on dependencies, workload or capacity views, cross-project planning, or guest permissions
- Reporting scored 4-5, with dashboards, Excel export and BI connections arriving through third-party add-ons such as Bridge24, EasyInsight and CData
- No public information on prices for the Freelancer and Pro tiers, on the monthly-versus-annual difference, or on tax treatment, alongside the rule that 'We do not allow downgrading from a paid package to the free package'
- We found no public information on webhooks, and the migration service the pages show targets Basecamp 2 rather than the current version
Best for
- You need a flat, seat-free bill — the Unlimited Edition is framed as $300/month total even at 500 users
- You want to start with zero commitment — a free 1-project plan and a 30-day trial that take no credit card
- Your work already lives in Jira, Trello, Asana or 750+ Zapier-connected apps and you need two-way sync
- You build your own tooling and want a documented API v3 with OAuth and a command line
Avoid if
- You need EU data residency or European legal control — the privacy policy says products are 'primarily housed in the United States' and sovereignty scored 2-3
- Your planning spans portfolios — we found no public information on cross-project views, dependencies, workload or capacity planning, or guest permissions, and collaboration depth scored 5
- You need native dashboards, budgets or utilization reporting — the captured pages route these through third-party add-ons
- You must predict every invoice line before signup — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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
Every plan ships shared projects with accountability to-dos, message boards, scheduling with deadlines and milestones, and automatic check-ins, with unlimited users from the Studio tier — real multi-person work. We found no public information on workload or capacity views, dependencies, cross-project planning, or guest access with separate permissions, which is exactly where the gaps appear. 2 1
The Bootstrapper
Shared projects are clearly real — message boards, to-dos "for tracking work and accountability", Card Tables, Campfires & Pings, scheduling, and automatic check-ins in every plan, with a billion-plus @mentions behind it. I found no public information on cross-project views, workload or capacity planning, dependencies, or guest and client access, so planning depth beyond a single project is not evidenced. 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
Shared projects carry real multi-person work — to-do assignments, Kanban-style card tables, scheduling, chat, comments and automatic check-ins, with unlimited users from the Studio plan up and the usage scale to prove it. We found no public information on cross-project views, workload or capacity planning, dependency handling, or guest/client access with scoped permissions, which is what a 200-seat rollout needs to plan around. 2 1 8
The UX Purist
Shared projects are the real thing — assigned to-dos, comments, message boards, Campfires and Pings chat, scheduling for deadlines and milestones, automatic check-ins, all in every plan, with mentions, pings and boosts running at enormous scale. We found no public information on cross-project views, workload or capacity planning, dependencies, or client and guest access with permissions, so planning stays at the single-project level. 2 1 1
The Integrator
Shared projects are the product: message boards, to-dos framed for accountability, Kanban card tables, Campfires and Pings chat, a scheduling view for deadlines and milestones, and automatic check-ins, with unlimited users included from the Studio plan up. What I found no public information on is guest or client access with permissions, task dependencies, and any workload or capacity view — the cross-project layer that separates a team tool from a department tool. 2 1
The Skeptic
The core feature list shows real shared work — message boards, to-dos for accountability, kanban card tables, chat, scheduling and automatic check-ins in every plan, with unlimited users from the Studio package up and @mentions and boosts at scale. But we found no public information on dependencies, workload or capacity views, cross-project planning, or guest and client permissions, so I can only credit a solid per-project collaboration model. 2 1 8
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 product's own reporting is a Reports tool and automatic check-ins, with time tracking arriving on the Studio tier; budgets, utilization, dashboards and Excel export all arrive through third parties such as Bridge24, EasyInsight and CData connectors. We found no public information on built-in budget or utilization reporting or a native CSV export. 2 5
The Bootstrapper
Every plan includes Reports and Automatic Check-ins and Studio adds time tracking, but I found no public information on filters, budgets, utilization, or a native clean export. The serious reporting depth appears to live in third-party paid add-ons — Bridge24 for Excel export, EasyInsight, and CData drivers for Tableau and Power BI — a real extra cost a buyer should price in. 2 5
The Enterprise Architect
Native reporting is a reports view plus automatic check-ins, with time tracking only from the Studio plan; dashboards, rich charts and Excel/BI export all arrive through third-party partners rather than the product itself. We found no public information on budget or utilization reporting or on a customizable report builder, so I cannot evidence answers to the questions finance asks at renewal. 2 5 6
The UX Purist
Native reporting amounts to progress reports, automatic check-ins (72 million answers banked) and time tracking on the Studio tier; anything richer — dashboards, Excel grids, BI connections, Gantt charts, flexible time reports — arrives through third-party add-ons like Bridge24, EasyInsight, CData and Everhour. We found no public information on native cross-project report building, budget or utilization reporting, or native export formats. 2 1 5
The Integrator
Reports and automatic check-ins are built in and time tracking comes with the Studio plan, but the real analysis lives in partners: Bridge24 for power grids and Excel export, EasyInsight for dashboards, CData drivers to pull Basecamp into Excel, Tableau or Power BI, Ganttify for gantt charts. Workable through the API, yet we found no public information on budgets or utilization reporting and no native custom report builder — the export story depends on third parties. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
Native reporting is named as "Reports & Automatic Check-ins", time tracking arrives only with the Studio package, and we found no public information on native export, cross-project aggregation, budgets or utilization. Every serious reporting path on the integrations page — Excel export, dashboards, Tableau and Power BI connections — is a third-party service, which tells you what the built-in reports are worth. 2 1 5
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 documented API v3 with OAuth plus a CLI and AI-agent-ready developer surfaces, automation platforms reaching 750+ apps through Zapier and 650+ through Zoho Flow, real migration paths into the product via Relokia, and a developer program. We found no public information on webhooks, the one piece missing from an otherwise ecosystem-grade catalogue. 1 5 6
The Bootstrapper
Genuinely broad: API v3 with OAuth, a developer program, CLI and "Skills" described as AI Agent-ready, Zapier at "750+ business apps", Zoho Flow at 650+, viaSocket at 6000+, Unito syncing Jira, Trello, Asana and friends, BI drivers, official apps on every platform, a Relokia migration path, and documented account export. I found no public information on native webhooks, which is the one gap keeping this from the top. 3 1 5 6
The Enterprise Architect
The strongest surface for an enterprise buyer: a public API (v3) with OAuth, a command line, agent-ready developer tools and a developer program, plus first-class automation-platform coverage and two-way sync with Jira, Trello, Asana and peers. Real migration paths from other services and published export instructions across product versions give me a credible exit story. 5 6 3 1
The UX Purist
The connection story is genuinely broad: an API v3 with OAuth, a command line, Skills and AI-agent readiness, a developer program, automation coverage through Zapier (750+ apps), Zoho Flow and viaSocket, Unito syncing to Jira, GitHub, GitLab and peers, migration help from other services, and direct account export on the way out. We found no public information on webhooks, which is what keeps this just below the top of the range. 5 1 6 3 1
The Integrator
This is my kind of surface: Basecamp API v3 with OAuth, a CLI, developer tools flagged 'AI Agent-ready', plus Zapier at 750+ apps, Zoho Flow, elastic.io, viaSocket and Unito syncing to Jira, Trello, Asana, GitHub and more; account export is self-serve for every product generation and Relokia migrates projects in from other services. Two gaps hold it back from the top: we found no public information on webhooks, and the migration path the pages show targets Basecamp 2 rather than the current version. 5 1 3 6
The Skeptic
The catalogue is broad and specific: a documented API v3 with OAuth, a developer program, Zapier at 750+ apps, Unito syncing to Jira, Asana, Trello and more, and a migration service for incoming projects. But we found no public information on webhooks, and the chat, BI and file-sync connections run through third-party bridges rather than first-party hooks, so I stop short of the top band. 1 5 6
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
Signup is free with a 1-project free plan, a 30-day trial with no credit card required — no payment data collected before commitment, which I appreciate — and a 3-minute tour plus live sessions promising setup in minutes. We found no public information on first-project templates or built-in importers, so the very top end stays out of reach. 1 2 1
The Bootstrapper
Sign-up is free, the 30-day trial takes no credit card — "We don’t ask for a credit card to try Basecamp, so we couldn’t charge you even if we wanted to" — and the free 1-project package gives a small team somewhere to land after the trial. A 3-minute tour and live "set up in minutes" webinars point to fast first value, but I found no public information on project templates or a self-serve importer pulling existing work in. 1 2 1 10
The Enterprise Architect
Sign-up is free, the thirty-day trial takes no credit card, there is a free plan to start in, and a three-minute tour, personal demos, webinars and free live classes back the first week. I held it under the top band because we found no public information on guided in-product setup, ready-made project templates, or importers that pull a newcomer's existing work in. 2 1 10 8
The UX Purist
First value is fast and unguarded: sign-up is free, no credit card for the 30-day trial, no auto-charge possible, a free plan with one live project from minute one, a 3-minute tour, and free live intro classes plus a free learning library to teach the rest. We found no public information on guided in-product setup or project templates, which is the last mile between a quick first hour and minutes-to-value. 2 1 1 10
The Integrator
Signup to value is about as frictionless as it gets: a free plan, 30-day trials that never ask for a credit card, a 3-minute tour, free live classes, and webinars promising setup in minutes. The vendor's own handbook even shows welcome projects with role-tailored to-do lists as a first-day pattern. I dock it slightly because the importer we found moves work into Basecamp 2, not the current version. 2 1 8 10
The Skeptic
"We don't ask for a credit card to try Basecamp, so we couldn't charge you even if we wanted to" is the most buyer-friendly line in the file, and a free one-project plan, a 30-day trial and a 3-minute tour back it up. No self-serve trap here; only the silence on templates and guided setup keeps it from the top. 1 2 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
The privacy policy answers my first question directly — products are "primarily housed in the United States" on self-owned US hardware under 37signals LLC of Oak Park, Illinois — and we found no public information on an EU residency option. GDPR substance exists (purge within 60 days of cancellation, trash purged within 90, breach notification, a DPA on request, published CAIQ and HECVAT self-assessments), so this clears the floor, but for a European controller the entire dataset sits under US jurisdiction — paperwork over substance. 3 4 1
The Bootstrapper
The privacy policy says products are "primarily housed in the United States" on self-owned hardware, and I found no public information on an EU data residency option — a European buyer's data sits with an Illinois company under US jurisdiction. There is GDPR-facing paperwork (a DPA available on request, an EU/UK complaint right, a published CAIQ self-assessment), but it reads as compliance paperwork over substance. 3 4 1
The Enterprise Architect
This cannot survive a European procurement review: 37signals LLC sits in Oak Park, Illinois, the products are "primarily housed in the United States," and we found no public information on any EU residency option — the DPA arrives on request by email rather than published. The security posture itself is well documented — encryption, breach history, internal access audits, a published CAIQ self-assessment — but we found no public information on EU data residency, European control, or a subprocessor list, so for an EU buyer this is paperwork over substance. 3 2 4
The UX Purist
A Chicago company (37signals LLC, Oak Park, Illinois) on self-owned hardware 'primarily housed in the United States', with no EU residency option — the GDPR surface of EU/UK complaint rights, a DPA on request and a published CAIQ self-assessment sits on top of US hosting and US jurisdiction. Compliance language is present; the substance is American. 3 4
The Integrator
The legal entity is 37signals LLC of Oak Park, Illinois, and the captured pages say products are 'primarily housed in the United States' — I found no public information pointing to any EU residency option, so a European buyer lands on US infrastructure under US jurisdiction. There is GDPR-facing paperwork, a DPA available on request via the security team and EU/UK complaint rights, which for my purposes is compliance language with the substance still stateside. 3 4
The Skeptic
The vendor is a US LLC in Oak Park, Illinois, and its products are "primarily housed in the United States" — we found no public information on any EU residency option, and the DPA appears only on email request to the security team. Self-assessed CAIQ and PCI paperwork over substance: for a European buyer this is a US-cloud product with GDPR acknowledgments, not sovereignty. 3 4 2
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
Free live classes, an extensive learning library free for all customers, human-staffed support, status and reliability pages, and support staff averaging nine years' tenure are genuinely strong. The captured pages give different impressions of 24/7/365 availability — one lists it as a Studio tier feature while the homepage promises it generally — the contact path is a web form currently noting longer response times, and we found no public information on chat or published response-time commitments. 1 2 1 10
The Bootstrapper
Support is human and 24/7/365 — though that availability is listed among the Studio package's features on the pricing page while the homepage states it generally, so the plan scope is unclear from the captures — plus free live classes, a free learning library for all customers, a community, the CEO's email, and a service team averaging 9 years. The contact path I can see is a web form that warns "response times may be a bit longer than usual right now", and I found no public information on chat, published SLAs, or a visible changelog. 1 2 1 9 10
The Enterprise Architect
A human-staffed 24/7/365 posture with an average nine-year service-team tenure, a learning library free for all customers, free live classes and direct CEO email access is more substance than most vendors show; the captured pages place round-the-clock support both on the homepage for everyone and inside the Studio feature list. It stays under the top band because support runs through a web form that currently warns response times may be longer than usual, and we found no public information on chat channels, published SLAs or a visible changelog. 1 1 2 10
The UX Purist
The learning surface is deep and free: help covering Basecamp 5, 2 and Classic, accessibility and keyboard-shortcut pages, free live classes, a free learning library, a community, humans staffing support 24/7/365 with nine-year average tenure, even CEO email access. The captured support channel is a web form with no published response-time promise — and the page itself notes response times run slower than usual right now; we found no public information on chat support or a visible changelog. 9 10 1 1 2
The Integrator
The learning surface is deep and free: a help center split by product version, an extensive learning library, free live classes, demo webinars, status and reliability pages, and a service team averaging nine years' tenure with humans advertised around the clock. The contact surface is a categorized web form that reads and responds to every message — currently noting slower-than-usual response times — and we found no public information on live chat support or a visible changelog. 10 2 1 9
The Skeptic
The learning surface is real — a help center covering three product versions, a free learning library, free live classes and webinars — and "staffed by incredible humans, we're here for you 24/7/365" is a strong claim. But contact is a web form with response times "a bit longer than usual right now", the 24/7/365 support is advertised as a selling point of the paid Studio package, and we found no public information on published SLAs or a visible changelog. 2 1 9 10
Pricing transparency
panel disagrees
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
Studio at $59/mo and the Unlimited Edition at $300/month total — with the vendor confirming 500 users at that price — plus a free plan, no-credit-card trials, prorated refunds on annual cancellation and extra storage published at $100/month for 5 terabytes. We found no public information on prices for the Freelancer and Pro tiers, on the monthly-versus-annual difference, or on tax treatment. 2
The Bootstrapper
The pricing page answers before it qualifies: "$59/mo" Studio and "$300/month total" Unlimited with unlimited users and "No per-user fees, everyone's included", a free 1-project package, trials without a credit card, cancel-any-time with prorated annual refunds, and even the extra 5 terabytes of storage priced at "$100/month" on the page. The captured pages give no price for the Freelancer and Pro packages and say nothing about tax treatment, and one fine-print rule bites: "We do not allow downgrading from a paid package to the free package." 2
The Enterprise Architect
The flat-fee model is unusually legible — Studio at $59/mo, Unlimited at $300/month total with no per-user fees even at 500 users, extra storage at $100/month for 5 terabytes, trials without a card — which makes a 200-seat budget trivial to model. But we found no public information on the prices of the Freelancer and Pro tiers, on tax treatment, or on how the billing periods differ; the Studio feature list names annual billing while the headline reads monthly, so the headline number still needs qualifying. 2 1
The UX Purist
The structure is unusually honest — no per-user fees, unlimited users from Studio upward, Studio at $59/mo and Unlimited Edition at $300/month total, an extra 5 terabytes for $100/month, 10% off non-profits, free for education, no card to try, cancel anytime with prorated annual refunds. But we found no public information on the prices of the Freelancer and Pro tiers, on how monthly and annual billing differ beyond 'Annual billing' appearing as a Studio feature, or on tax treatment. 2
The Integrator
The rules are unusually plain: no per-user fees with unlimited users from Studio upward, Studio at $59/mo, the Unlimited Edition framed as '$300/month total', extra storage at $100/month for an additional 5 terabytes, prorated refunds on annual cancellation, and no credit card to try. We found no public information on prices for the Freelancer and Pro tiers, on the difference between monthly and annual billing, or on tax treatment, so not every tier's invoice can be predicted before signup. 2
The Skeptic
Flat pricing with no per-user fees is honest arithmetic: "Studio, $59/mo", "$300/month total" on Unlimited Edition, extra storage at an extra $100/month, no card for trials, prorated refunds on annual cancellation. But "Annual billing" sits in the Studio feature list without the page stating how billing periods change any number, tax treatment goes unmentioned, we found no price figures for the Freelancer and Pro tiers, and "We do not allow downgrading from a paid package to the free package" is a lock-in rule worth reading before checkout. 2 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited 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, Data residency, Subprocessors, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 51 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
- 28 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
- 23 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
- 14 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
- 10 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
- 10 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
- 9 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +4 earlier captures: 21 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 28 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Integrations — found from sitemap basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations — found from sitemap basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Support & documentation — found from sitemap basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Support & documentation — found from sitemap basecamp.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →