Project Management & Collaboration
ClickUp
Rest of world 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 ClickUp (Mango Technologies, Inc.) · clickup.com
Compare with Scoro → 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
ClickUp, a project management and collaboration tool from Mango Technologies, Inc. of San Diego, is strongest on onboarding effort — a flat 6 — on a free tier with no credit card required, two-factor authentication and apps for macOS, iOS, Windows and Android. It is weakest on reporting at 0-1: no report, dashboard, time, budget or export capability appears anywhere in the captured pages, only an Enterprise audit log and AI marketing copy. Collaboration depth sits at a flat 3 — workspaces, owners and permission-respecting AI agents are proven, while assignments, timelines, comments and guest access are not — and integrations at a flat 4, with Google Drive, GitHub, Salesforce and MCP named but the API evidenced only as an 'Enterprise API' line. Formal disagreement stayed below threshold throughout; spreads never exceed one point (sovereignty 3-4, support & documentation 3-4, pricing transparency 5-6, reporting 0-1). The rationales converge: public per-user prices of $9 and $28 blurred by $0.001 AI Super Credits and an unpriced Enterprise tier, a '24/7 Support' claim with no evidenced help center, and California law 'regardless of your location' with US transfers reserved.
Speaks for it
- Free tier requires no credit card and includes two-factor authentication, with apps for macOS, iOS, Windows and Android
- Self-serve per-user prices are public — Brain AI $9 and Everything AI $28 per user/month — with a 100% money-back guarantee
- Named connectors cover Google Drive, GitHub and Salesforce plus an MCP surface, and AI agents respect user permissions
- '24/7 Support' is claimed on the pricing and privacy pages with no visible plan gating
Held against it
- No report, dashboard, time-tracking, budget or export capability appears anywhere in the captured pages
- Beyond workspace owners, end users and permissions, no assignments, comments, timelines, dependencies, workload views or guest access are evidenced
- The only API in evidence is an 'Enterprise API' pricing line, with no webhooks, importer or export path shown
- The Enterprise tier is unpriced (contact sales) yet holds the API, SAML SSO/SCIM, audit log and data residency
- Sovereignty scores 3-4: US/California law 'regardless of your location', reserved US transfers, Enterprise-only data residency and no named subprocessors
Best for
- You want a genuinely free, no-credit-card start for a small team already using Google Drive, GitHub or Salesforce
- You plan to stay on self-serve tiers with published per-user prices while trialing AI features
- You need permission-respecting AI agents over connected apps more than deep planning or reporting
Avoid if
- You need dashboards, time tracking, budgets or exportable reports — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need a documented public API, webhooks or an import path without an Enterprise conversation
- You need EU data residency on a self-serve plan — the evidence shows residency as an Enterprise Plan option and reserves transfers to the United States
- You rely on a help center or changelog to onboard a team — only '24/7 Support' and a support email are evidenced
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
The privacy policy's structure of workspace owners and end users proves genuine multi-user workspaces, but beyond the '100+ products' marketing claim the evidence evidences nothing about assignments, dependencies, workload views, comments or guest access. Absence of evidence on planning mechanics means I cannot credit what isn't documented. 1 4
The Bootstrapper
Workspaces with owners and end-users, per-user permissions that AI agents must respect, and SAML/SCIM at the top tier prove a second person has a defined place. But nothing shows a shared timeline, dependency, workload or guest view — '100+ products' is a slogan, not a feature list — so I can't credit team-level planning that isn't evidenced. 1 2 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
A workspace model with owners and end users, permission-respecting AI agents and '100+ products' marketing copy is all the evidence carries — no evidence of assignments, comments, shared timelines, workload, dependencies or guest access, which is exactly what I'd need proven before two hundred seats move in. 1 3 4
The UX Purist
Multi-user structure is proven — workspaces with owners and end users, a permissions model, SAML SSO and SCIM provisioning — but not one shared planning surface is evidenced: no timeline, no workload view, no dependencies, no comments, no guest access. '100+ products' is a slogan, not a feature; per the evidence, planning beyond a shared workspace is invisible. 1 2 3 4
The Integrator
Multi-user workspaces with owners, end users and permission inheritance are evidenced ('your team's project and task data', AI respecting user permissions, Enterprise SCIM), so a second user clearly has a defined place. But the evidence is silent on the mechanics that make planning shared — assignments, timelines, dependencies, workload, guest access — so it cannot honestly clear rubric level 3. 4 2 1
The Skeptic
Multi-user workspaces owned by organizations plus enterprise SAML/SCIM prove this is a shared team tool, but the evidence contains zero evidence of assignments, comments, timelines, dependencies, workload views or guest access — the '100+ products' homepage boast is marketing, not capability. I can't credit planning depth nobody documented. 1 2 4
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
No report, dashboard, time-tracking, budget or export capability appears anywhere in the evidence; the closest thing is AI 'answers and insights' marketing copy. 1
The Bootstrapper
The evidence contains no report, dashboard, time tracker, budget view or export — the closest thing is a marketing line that AI 'gets you answers and insights' and an Enterprise audit log. That's a vibe, not reporting; by the anchors this is barely above looking at the board. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
The only gesture toward reporting is Brain² providing 'answers and insights'; nothing on progress, time, budgets, utilization, dashboards, exports or API access to metrics. Silence this deep is information — for a tool feeding my audit trail, near-zero is what's evidenced. 1
The UX Purist
The word report appears nowhere across homepage, pricing, security and privacy pages — no dashboards, no time tracking, no budget or utilization views, no export path. The closest thing is homepage AI copy promising 'answers and insights', which is marketing fragrance, not a reporting capability. 1 2
The Integrator
Nothing here reports on the work: no dashboards, time, budget or utilization views, and no export path of any kind — not even a CSV exit. The only adjacent items are an Enterprise-only audit log and an 'Enterprise API' pricing line item, which is compliance logging plus an undocumented pipe, not reporting. 2
The Skeptic
Not one report, dashboard, time-tracking view, budget or export path appears anywhere on the homepage, pricing page or security page; the only 'log' in the entire sheet is the Enterprise Audit Log, which is a security artifact, not an answer to questions about work. Silence this complete is information. 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
Connected apps to Google Drive, GitHub and Salesforce plus an 'ANY MCP' surface are real and the MCP angle is genuinely extensible, but the API is gated to the Enterprise plan and there is no evidence of a documented public API, webhooks or import paths, which keeps this below the common-set anchor. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Named connectors (Google Drive, GitHub, Salesforce) plus MCP support is a real start, but the only API in evidence is an 'Enterprise API' line item — paywalling the API behind contact-sales is exactly what I reject. No calendar/Slack hooks, webhooks, or import paths appear anywhere in the evidence. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Google Drive, GitHub and Salesforce 'and more' plus MCP support and an Enterprise API lift it above a closed box, but the API is Enterprise-gated and webhooks, calendar/comms hooks and real import paths are unevidenced — my exit strategy requires a verifiable complete API export and I can't confirm one. 1 2
The UX Purist
Three named marquee apps (Google Drive, GitHub, Salesforce) plus an MCP surface — that last one is genuinely modern — but the only API mentioned is a line-item in the Enterprise pricing column, with zero documentation or self-serve access evidenced. No webhooks, no import paths, no automation-platform coverage shown; automations exist as quota lines, not as a connector story. 1 2 4
The Integrator
Three marquee connections are named (Google Drive, GitHub, Salesforce, 'and more') with an MCP surface claim and native automations, which nudges above the closed-box anchors. But the API exists in this evidence only as an Enterprise pricing feature, and there is no documented public API, no webhooks, no automation-platform support, no importer and no export path — a gated pipe is not an open ecosystem. 1 2
The Skeptic
Native hooks into Google Drive, GitHub, Salesforce and an MCP surface are claimed, but the only API the evidence evidences is 'Enterprise API' — the public API appears paywalled behind the contact-sales tier, a classic lock-in pattern. No webhooks, no export path, no calendar/Slack evidence. 1 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-forever tier with no credit card required and free-plan features like 2FA signal real self-serve, but the evidence says nothing about guided setup, templates or importers. I can credit low signup friction, not the inside-an-hour experience, because nothing documents it. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
'Free forever. No credit card.' is the signup answer I want, and even the free tier gets two-factor auth. But 60MB free storage is stingy and nothing evidences templates, guided setup or importers, so I can't credit the inside-an-hour anchor — a day, maybe, on this evidence. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
'Free forever. No credit card.' is genuine self-serve without a payment gate, which clears rubric level 5. But guided setup, sensible defaults, templates and importers are all unevidenced, so I stop short of rubric level 8. 1 2
The UX Purist
The stopwatch likes what's here: a free-forever tier with no credit card, so signup costs nothing but time. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates, sensible defaults or importers to pull existing work in, and the '100+ products' sprawl is exactly the wall of surface area that strands a newcomer in front of an empty first screen. 1 2
The Integrator
'Free forever. No credit card' plus native apps on every platform is a genuinely frictionless self-serve entry, and 2FA even on the free plan signals sensible defaults. Docked below 8 because nothing evidences guided setup, templates, or — the part I weigh most — an importer to pull a team's existing work in. 1 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
GDPR language and a referenced DPA over a US-controlled substance — rubric level 3. 2 3 4
The Bootstrapper
A San Diego Inc. under California law 'regardless of your location', FTC oversight, and a policy that data may be processed in the US — the GDPR badge and referenced DPA are paperwork over substance. EU residency exists only as an Enterprise-plan option, which doesn't help a European buyer on self-serve tiers. 2 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
Mango Technologies, Inc. of San Diego governs under US and California law 'regardless of your location', with FTC oversight, AWS-only hosting and permissive US transfers; the AWS Ireland region exists only as an Enterprise option, leaving core subprocessors squarely within CLOUD Act reach. That's compliance paperwork over substance for my file. 2 3 4
The UX Purist
A San Diego Inc. governed by California law 'regardless of your location', under FTC oversight, with transfers to the US explicitly reserved — the only European concession is an Ireland AWS region, priced into the Enterprise plan alone. Textbook anchor-3: DPA and GDPR badges on top, US substance underneath. 2 3 4
The Integrator
A San Diego entity governed by US/California law 'regardless of your location', under FTC oversight, with the privacy policy explicitly permitting transfer to the United States — GDPR-compliant badges and a DPA sit on top of that, which is exactly the paperwork-over-substance pattern. The Ireland AWS region is real but Enterprise-gated and sits on a US hyperscaler within CLOUD Act reach. 4 3 2
The Skeptic
A San Diego company under US/California governing law 'regardless of your location' with FTC oversight — GDPR badges and a DPA reference are paperwork over substance. EU residency exists only as an Enterprise-plan option on AWS Ireland (CLOUD-Act-reachable US hyperscaler, sales-gated), while the privacy policy explicitly reserves transfers to the US. 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
24/7 support is claimed on the pricing and privacy pages, but the evidence shows no help center, no changelog and no docs of any depth, and privacy/data-subject requests route to a generic support@clickup.com rather than a designated contact. Half of rubric level 5 is present; the documentation half is entirely unevidenced. 2 4
The Bootstrapper
'24/7 Support' is repeated on three pages and there's a support@ email, which beats a bare contact form. But the evidence evidences zero documentation surface — no help center, guides or changelog anywhere — so beyond pinging support I can't verify a stuck user gets unstuck. 1 2 4
The Enterprise Architect
'24/7 Support' is claimed on three pages with a support email, but the evidence evidences no help center, chat channel, published SLA, per-plan support gating or changelog. A loud, unverifiable claim doesn't get a stuck two-hundred-seat team unstuck. 1 2 4
The UX Purist
'24/7 Support' is claimed on the homepage with no visible plan gating — genuinely good if true — but the captured surface contains no help center, no guides, no changelog, nothing that teaches the product. A stuck user gets a channel and an email address, not a learning surface. 1 2 4
The Integrator
'24/7 Support' is claimed on the homepage, pricing and privacy pages with no visible plan gating, which is better than email-only. But the registry captures no help center, guides, changelog or API documentation at all, and even ISO certificates and SOC reports are only available by emailing sales — an information culture that gates rather than publishes. 2 4 3
The Skeptic
The entire support case is a '24/7 Support' badge repeated on three pages — no channel, no response times, no per-plan gating, and not one shred of evidence that docs, a help center or a changelog exist. Even SOC/ISO certificates require emailing sales@clickup.com, which tells you how the funnel is wired. 1 2 3
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
Self-serve tiers carry public per-user prices with yearly discounts stated, but tax treatment is nowhere stated, and the Enterprise tier — the only place where EU data residency lives — is 'contact sales'. A European buyer cannot put a number on the GDPR-relevant configuration, which caps it at rubric level 5 for me. 2 3
The Bootstrapper
Self-serve numbers sit on the page ($9 and $28 per user/month, AI credits at $0.001) with a genuine free tier and no seat minimums in sight. But 'Save up to 20%/30%' doesn't say which billing basis the headline uses, tax treatment is unstated, and Enterprise — which holds the API, data residency, SAML/SCIM and audit log — is pure 'contact sales', so the opaque tier is doing real work. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Self-serve AI tiers are priced at $9 and $28 per user/month with stated 'save up to' yearly discounts, but tax treatment is unstated and the opaque Enterprise tier does real work — SAML SSO/SCIM, audit log, data residency and the API all sit behind 'contact sales'. For my seat count, the number that matters most has no number. 2
The UX Purist
Real numbers in public — free tier, $9 and $28 per user per month, free-tier storage stated — and a money-back guarantee on top. But 'save up to 20/30% with yearly' never says which billing period the headline assumes, tax treatment is unstated, and metered AI credits at $0.001 apiece means computing an invoice requires arithmetic the page doesn't do for you. 1 2
The Integrator
Per-user prices are public for the AI tiers ($9, $28) alongside a no-credit-card free tier, so the surface is self-serve priced. But 'save up to 20–30%' hedging, metered AI credits at $0.001 each that make the headline not the invoice, an unpriced contact-sales Enterprise tier, and silence on tax treatment keep it firmly in needs-qualifying territory. 2 1
The Skeptic
Per-user prices are public with a genuine free tier, but 'save up to 20%/30% with yearly' means the billing-period premium is a teaser, not a number; tax treatment is unaddressed, Enterprise is contact-sales, and a metered 'AI Super Credits' side-tariff ($0.001/credit) is a hidden-cost vector by design. The headline is not obviously the invoice. 2 1
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 US ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU optional ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 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 — Legal entity. No imprint or register entry exists; the legal name "Mango Technologies, Inc. DBA ClickUp" gives no place of incorporation, so the US is inferred from the governing-law clause rather than an explicit incorporation statement.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. EU hosting is offered only as an option on the Enterprise plan, and the privacy policy separately states data may be transferred to, stored at, and processed in the United States.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. AWS is a US-headquartered provider subject to the CLOUD Act even though an EU (Ireland) region is offered, and the dedicated Subprocessors page listed in the privacy-policy navigation was not 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.
- 10 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
- 7 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
- 4 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
- 2 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
- 1 support 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
- 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage clickup.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page clickup.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security page clickup.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy clickup.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap developer.clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reporting — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations — found from sitemap developer.clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Support & documentation — found from sitemap clickup.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →