Project Management & Collaboration
Beesbusy
EU-Made Report an errorPanel 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 Beesbusy SAS · www.beesbusy.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
Beesbusy, a project management tool from a French SAS registered in Nantes and hosted by Infomaniak in Geneva, scores strongest on reporting and pricing transparency and weakest on support & documentation and integrations. Reporting rests on a build-your-own report builder, configurable dashboards, and Enterprise-gated time tracking and budget management. Pricing rests on published numbers for every tier — FREE with no credit card required, Business at 9.9€ and Enterprise at 19.9€ per month billed annually, plus 5/50/100-license Enterprise packs at 18.9/15.9/13.9€ — though monthly prices are only implied by a stated 20% yearly discount and tax treatment is unstated. The weak spots are specific: the entire evidenced support surface is one marketing sentence with no channels, response times, or changelog, and the integration catalogue is six named connections with no API, webhooks, or Slack/Teams anywhere in the evidence. Collaboration depth and onboarding effort both sit at 6: cross-project workload views are credited, but dependencies, comments, and permission granularity appear nowhere. Sovereignty spans 5–7 — a concrete entity and host, but no DPA or subprocessor list; flagged splits show none above threshold.
Speaks for it
- Every tier carries a published price, including Enterprise packs of 5/50/100 licenses at 18.9/15.9/13.9€ per license monthly with annual commitment
- The FREE tier requires no credit card, and education use is free for teachers and students
- A build-your-own report builder with configurable dashboards, time tracking, and budget management gives reporting the strongest floor on the table at 7–8
- Genuine import paths from Trello, Planner, and Excel ease migration from incumbent tools
- Sovereignty anchors are verifiable — a French SAS in the Nantes trade register, hosting by Infomaniak in Geneva, and on-premise or dedicated SaaS options
Held against it
- No public API, webhooks, Slack/Teams, or automation platforms appear anywhere in the evidence, leaving integrations at 4
- The entire evidenced support surface is one marketing sentence, with no channels, response times, docs depth, or changelog
- Excel export, time tracking, and budget management are gated to Enterprise, and the Trello/Excel importers start at Business
- Dependencies, comments, and permission granularity are evidenced nowhere, holding collaboration depth at 6
- Ownership, data residency, and subprocessor exposure are marked unknown in the evidence, and no DPA or subprocessor list is evidenced
Best for
- You need published volume pricing to budget 5–100 Enterprise seats without talking to sales
- You are a European team that wants a French SAS hosted by Infomaniak in Geneva, with on-premise or dedicated SaaS available
- You run a charity, nonprofit, or school and can use the 90% nonprofit Enterprise discount or free education access
- You need cross-project workload and resource-utilization reporting with configurable dashboards
Avoid if
- You depend on API access, webhooks, Slack/Teams, or automation platforms to run your workflow
- You need documented support with per-plan channels, response times, and a changelog
- Your procurement cannot sign without a DPA or subprocessor list
- You expect to import existing Trello or Excel projects on the free tier — the importers begin at Business
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
Cross-project workload and resource utilization is evidenced as a first-class view, and client-facing surfaces exist (request portal, read-only shared pages). But the evidence never evidences assignments, comments or task dependencies, so I cannot call team-level planning complete — mid-way between the 5 and 8 anchors. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Workload and resource utilization across all projects, Gantt/Kanban/List/Calendar views, Gantt gated to Business, plus client-facing surfaces (read-only share page, request portal) get this past solid shared projects. But the evidence says nothing about task dependencies, comments, or permissions granularity, so I can't call team-level planning first-class. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Real team-level planning is evidenced: Gantt, cross-project workload and resource-utilization views, and a portal that centralizes customer and internal requests, sold as 'Collaborative work and planning' at Business tier. But the evidence is silent on dependencies and on guest accounts with defined permissions — external sharing is only a read-only web page — so it sits between 5 and 8, short of first-class team planning. 1 2
The UX Purist
Cross-project workload and resource-utilization views plus a customer request portal and read-only shared pages are genuine team and client surfaces. But the evidence never evidences assignments, comments or dependencies — the connective tissue of shared work — so I can't credit what isn't there, and this lands between solid and first-class. 1 2
The Integrator
Cross-project workload and resource utilization views are first-class, and the customer request portal plus read-only shared pages give real client involvement — but dependencies, assignment granularity and guest permission depth are nowhere in the evidence. 1 2
The Skeptic
Team-level planning is real, not slideware: cross-project workload and resource utilization views plus a client request portal and read-only project sharing. But dependencies, comments, and permission granularity appear nowhere in the evidence — I can't confirm the basics every team assumes exist. 1 2
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
Every ingredient of the anchor is present: configurable dashboards with progress and key indicators, a build-your-own report by rows and columns, plus time tracking, budget management and Excel export on Enterprise. Nothing beyond the export is evidenced — no scheduled delivery, no API to the metrics — so not a 10. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Build-your-own reports and configurable dashboards with progress, delays and custom fields, plus time tracking and budget management, is genuinely configurable cross-project reporting — close to the 8 anchor. It loses points because Excel export only exists on ENTERPRISE and there's no evidence of CSV export, scheduled delivery, or any API to metrics. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Configurable dashboards with progress, delays, KPIs and custom fields, plus a build-your-own report builder by rows and columns, cover time, utilization and budget. It stops short of the 8 because Excel export, time recording and budget management all sit behind Enterprise and nothing evidences API access to metrics or scheduled delivery. 1 2
The UX Purist
A build-your-own report builder (rows and columns), configurable dashboards with progress, delays, key indicators and custom fields, plus time tracking and budget management — that's a real reporting surface, not a board you squint at. It loses a point because the only export evidenced is a single Excel button gated to ENTERPRISE, with no scheduled delivery or API access to metrics. 1 2
The Integrator
Custom report builder and configurable dashboards with progress, delays and KPIs, plus time tracking and budget management on Enterprise, cover most of rubric level 8 — but the export leg is Excel-only and Enterprise-gated, and there is no API access to any metric. 1 2
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 short list of point connections — Google/Outlook calendar sync, Trello and Planner imports, a one-way GitLab issue push, Excel import — with no API, webhooks, Slack/Teams or file storage anywhere in the evidence. rubric level 3 territory, nudged up for the genuine competitor import paths. 2
The Bootstrapper
Six integrations total — Google/Outlook calendar, Gitlab, and real import paths from Trello, Excel and Planner — but all of them except calendars sit behind paid tiers, and the evidence is silent on any public API, webhooks, Slack/Teams, or automation platforms. That's a handful of marquee integrations with no API, which is the 3 anchor; the migration imports nudge it up one. 2
The Enterprise Architect
Six named hooks — Google and Outlook calendar, Excel, Trello, Planner import, Gitlab — including genuine import paths from competitors. But no public API, no webhooks, no Slack/Teams, no automation platforms appear anywhere in the evidence; 'custom developments available' is bespoke paid work, not a surface I can integrate against. No evidenced API means no automated exit path, and I count that heavily. 1 2
The UX Purist
Two calendars, a GitLab issue bridge, and Trello/Planner/Excel importers — real migration paths, which I respect — but that is the entire evidenced catalogue. No API, no webhooks, no Slack/Teams, no automation platforms: rubric level 5 requires a documented public API, and the evidence is silent on one. 2
The Integrator
Calendar syncs, one-way Gitlab issue generation and genuine Trello/Planner import paths earn more than rubric level 3, but there is no documented public API, no webhooks, no Slack/Teams or automation platforms, and the only exit — Excel export — is locked to Enterprise: a near-closed box by my standards. 2 1
The Skeptic
Six named integrations — Google/Outlook calendars, Gitlab (Enterprise), Excel — including real import paths from Trello and Planner, which I'll credit. But no public API, no webhooks, no Slack/Teams, no automation platforms: a closed box with a few windows. 2
Onboarding effort
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Time and friction from signup to first real value for a small team, without paid services.
0 — No self-serve path — onboarding starts with a sales call and an implementation project.
3 — Self-serve exists but the first project requires configuration a newcomer cannot judge yet (workflows, custom fields, permissions) before anything works.
5 — A team gets a first project running within a day; trial requires payment details or key steps live behind docs.
8 — Signup to working project inside an hour: guided setup, sensible defaults, templates, trial without payment details.
10 — Minutes to value even for non-tool-people, importers pull existing work in, and the tool teaches its own advanced features as the team grows into them.
The Data Protection Officer
A free tier with no credit card required and importers that pull existing Trello, Planner and Excel work in make the self-serve path real. But nothing evidences guided setup, sensible defaults or templates, so this sits between the day-one and hour anchors. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
A real FREE tier with no credit card required means a three-person team can start tonight, which beats the 5 anchor's payment-detail friction. But there's zero evidence of guided setup, templates, or onboarding docs, and the importers that would pull existing work in (Trello, Excel) require the paid Business plan. 2
The Enterprise Architect
A free tier with no credit card and working importers for Trello, Planner and Excel let a team bring existing work in without a sales call. But nothing evidences guided setup, sensible defaults or templates, and the entire support surface is one marketing line — silence is information, so I will not assume the hour-to-value of an 8. 1 2
The UX Purist
A free tier with no credit card is the correct first-run move, and the importers mean teams can bring existing work rather than face an empty screen. But the importers sit behind the BUSINESS tier, and nothing in the evidence shows guided setup, templates, or an interface that teaches itself — so anything above 6 is unevidenced. 1 2
The Integrator
A free tier explicitly without credit card is honest self-serve, but no guided setup or templates are evidenced and the importers that would seed a first project (Trello, Excel) sit behind the Business plan, so a newcomer starts from an empty canvas. 2
The Skeptic
Free tier with no credit card and free education access is genuine self-serve, better than the anchor's payment-detail tollbooth. But the importers that would pull existing work in start at Business, and there's zero evidence of templates or guided setup — speed to value is asserted, not shown. 2
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 vendor is a French SAS in Nantes and the host is named — Infomaniak in Geneva — European infrastructure outside CLOUD Act reach, with on-premise as a further option. But nothing is verifiable in contract: no DPA, no subprocessor list, and the privacy policy cites the 1978 French law rather than GDPR, so the posture is asserted rather than fixed — below the anchor that demands a public DPA. 2 3 4
The Bootstrapper
The sovereignty attributes are marked unknown, but E4 is concrete: BEESBUSY is a French SAS registered in Nantes, hosted by Infomaniak in Geneva, Switzerland — no US hyperscaler in sight — and E2 offers Dedicated SaaS and full On-Premise modes. What keeps this under 8: no public DPA is evidenced anywhere, ownership control is unconfirmed, and the privacy policy leans on France's 1978 law rather than GDPR specifics. 2 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
This is substance, not paperwork: a French SAS headquartered in Nantes and registered in the Nantes trade register, operating under the French 'Information Technology and Freedoms' law, with hosting named as Infomaniak in Geneva — no US hyperscaler in sight — and dedicated SaaS plus full on-premise options. But there is no public DPA, no subprocessor list, and ownership control is unverified; procurement would stall on the missing DPA, so I cannot certify the 8. 4 3 2
The UX Purist
A French SAS in Nantes with hosting at Infomaniak in Switzerland and on-premise/dedicated SaaS options is structurally European and outside US reach. But no public DPA, no contractual data-residency statement and no subprocessor list appear anywhere — the French-law privacy notice is the whole compliance surface — so verifiability stops well short of rubric level 8. 2 3 4
The Integrator
A French SAS headquartered in Nantes hosted by Infomaniak in Switzerland with on-premise and dedicated SaaS options gives real residency substance — but no DPA, ownership control or subprocessor list is evidenced anywhere, so I can verify the entity and the host but not the control chain. 4 3 2
The Skeptic
The bones are European: a French SAS in Nantes under French data law, hosted at Infomaniak in Geneva — no US hyperscaler or CLOUD Act reach in sight — plus on-premise and dedicated SaaS options. But ownership is unknown and there's no DPA or subprocessor list; European by address, unverified by paperwork. 2 3 4
Support & documentation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a stuck user gets unstuck: docs quality, support channels and their availability per plan, and the health of the learning surface.
0 — No docs beyond marketing pages; support is a contact form that may answer.
3 — Docs exist but are thin or stale; support on entry plans is effectively email-only with slow turnaround.
5 — Searchable help center covering the core product; chat or email support on all plans with reasonable response times.
8 — Deep, current docs incl. onboarding guides and templates; fast chat support not gated to top tiers; visible changelog.
10 — Docs, academy, community and support so good they are a reason to buy; SLAs published, support quality independent of plan.
The Data Protection Officer
The entire support surface in this sheet is one marketing sentence about 'online help and support'; no help center, channels, response times or changelog are evidenced. Missing evidence is information here — thin docs and unverifiable support, rubric level 3. 1
The Bootstrapper
The entire evidence base for support is one homepage sentence: 'With online help and support at your service, your questions will not go unanswered'. No help center, no docs depth, no channels per plan, no changelog — that's the 3 anchor's thin-and-unverifiable territory, and I can't confirm it's even that good. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The whole documented support and learning surface is one sentence: 'With online help and support at your service, your questions will not go unanswered'. No help center, no channels per plan, no response times, no changelog is evidenced — for two hundred seats that silence is a deployment risk, not a footnote. 1
The UX Purist
The entire evidenced support surface is one marketing sentence — 'online help and support at your service, your questions will not go unanswered'. No help center, no channels per plan, no changelog, no response times: silence is information, and this is nearly silence. 1
The Integrator
The entire support surface is one marketing line — "online help and support at your service" — with no evidenced help center, support channels, response times or changelog; the evidence's silence means I cannot confirm docs exist beyond marketing pages. 1
The Skeptic
The entire support case is one marketing sentence — 'online help and support at your service' — with nothing on channels, response times per plan, docs depth, or a changelog. A changelog I can't see is a changelog I assume is dead. 1
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
Unusually, even Enterprise carries public numbers, including per-pack license pricing and a nonprofit rate, with billing periods stated next to the headline. It falls short of full transparency only on tax treatment and the annual-billed headline, whose monthly delta is merely implied by the 20% yearly discount. 2
The Bootstrapper
This is what I want from a price page: FREE at €0 with no card, Business at €9.9/user/month billed annually, Enterprise at €19.9, and even the enterprise packs are published (5/50/100 licenses at 18.9/15.9/13.9€) with the 20% yearly discount stated. It stops short of 8 because the monthly-billed price is only derivable from the 'Yearly Save 20%' line and tax treatment is never mentioned — and the pack minimums (5 licenses) quietly set a floor for small teams wanting Enterprise. 2
The Enterprise Architect
Every self-serve tier is publicly priced with the billing period stated, and even Enterprise has published per-license pack prices at 5/50/100 seats, so I can ballpark a 200-seat number before talking to anyone. Monthly-billing prices are not shown (headlines are annual), tax treatment is unstated, and on-premise remains unpriced, which holds it at 8 rather than 10. 2
The UX Purist
Every tier carries a public number — free without card, BUSINESS at 9.9€, ENTERPRISE at 19.9€, even enterprise packs at 5/50/100 licenses with published volume rates — with billing period stated on the page. Monthly-billing prices are only implied by a 'save 20%' blurb and tax treatment is unspoken, which keeps the headline from being the exact invoice number. 2
The Integrator
Every tier is priced, Enterprise pack volumes are broken out per license, discounts are stated and the free tier needs no card — but tax treatment (VAT) is never mentioned and the monthly-billing price is implied by "Yearly Save 20%" without ever being quoted, so the headline 9,9€ still needs qualifying. 2
The Skeptic
Every tier including Enterprise carries a number, even published volume packs (5/50/100 licenses at declining per-license rates) — rarer honesty than the market norm. But every headline is annual-only, monthly is only implied by 'Yearly Save 20%', and tax treatment is never stated. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 FR | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | 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 15 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. 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.
- 8 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
- 1 data 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
- 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 (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.beesbusy.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.beesbusy.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.beesbusy.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal hub www.beesbusy.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.beesbusy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.beesbusy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →