Project Management & Collaboration
Coda
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Coda Project, Inc. · coda.io
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.
Coda at a glance
- Vendor
- Coda Project, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Coda 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. The captured pages carry a 'Coda is now Superhuman Docs' banner. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
The captured pages carry a 'Coda is now Superhuman Docs' banner. The product's clearest strength is integrations, where five of six judges sit at 7, the top of that band: a catalogue of 500+ integrations including Jira, Salesforce, Slack and Snowflake, a versioned public API with at least 3 months notice before breaking changes, and Packs that connect tools and automate workflows. Onboarding effort clusters at 6-7 on a free self-serve start ('Get started for free'), one-click template copies and a learning checklist from Essentials through Level 3; support and documentation lands at 5-7. The bench genuinely splits on collaboration depth (four judges at 4, one at 2, one at 0) and reporting (four at 4, one at 3, one at 0): higher scores credit a shared kanban board and a template that consolidates weekly updates into AI-summarized reports, while lower scores hold the evidence stays at board level and per-project status. The weakest area is sovereignty, which went unscored: the recorded attributes (jurisdiction, data residency, hosting, open source, DPA, transfer impact assessment) read unknown.
Speaks for it
- Integrations sit at the top of the band for five of six judges — a catalogue of 500+ integrations including Jira, Salesforce, Slack, Snowflake and Google, plus Packs that connect tools and automate workflows.
- A documented, versioned public API with a stated commitment to at least 3 months notice before any breaking changes.
- Self-serve onboarding: a free tier ('Get started for free'), templates that copy as your own doc in one click, and a learning checklist running from Level 1 Essentials through Level 3.
- A team status template consolidates members' weekly updates and uses AI to generate summarized reports, key insights, risk overviews and an executive summary.
- Support surfaces are present: help center, contact support, a community, Admin Audit API documentation and an API migration guide.
Held against it
- We found no public information on assignments, dependencies, guest access, workload views or role-based permissions in the captured collaboration pages.
- We found no public information on cross-project dashboards, budgets, utilization, filters, scheduled delivery or export paths for report data.
- We found no public information on webhooks, automation platforms such as Zapier or Make, or import and export paths in and out of the product.
- Every recorded sovereignty attribute — legal entity jurisdiction, data residency, hosting options, open source, DPA, transfer impact assessment — reads unknown.
- The only pricing signal captured is 'Get started for free'; we found no public information on paid tier prices, billing periods, seat minimums or tax treatment.
Best for
- You run a stack of Jira, Salesforce, Slack and Snowflake and want one collaborative surface connected to all of it — the criterion the bench scored highest.
- You want to start free and self-serve, copying a working task board as your own doc and working through a three-level learning checklist before any commitment.
- Your reporting need is the weekly ritual — members submit updates to one table and AI generates summarized reports, key insights, a risk overview and an executive summary.
- You build on a documented public API and want predictable change management, with at least 3 months notice before breaking changes.
Avoid if
- You are sizing a two-hundred-seat deployment and need assignments, dependencies and role-based permissions documented first — one judge found no public information on any of these, which is what would be needed before putting two hundred seats on it.
- Your reports must feed other tools through exports or scheduled delivery — the rationales record no public information on either, and one judge named the export path as the part that matters when reporting has to feed other tools.
- You must enter procurement with a data processing agreement, data residency commitments or a transfer impact assessment in hand — every recorded sovereignty attribute reads unknown, and the data protection judge scored nothing here, calling the question open rather than answered.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Collaboration depth | 2 of 5 |
| Reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| Onboarding effort | 3 of 5 |
| Support & documentation | 3 of 5 |
Collaboration depth
panel disagrees
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 captured pages document a simple kanban board with drag-and-drop status cards and a sortable, editable table view, and I found no public information on assignments, comments, shared timelines, dependencies or workload views. A weekly-status template does define a place for team members to submit updates into one consolidated table, which is why this sits slightly above a purely personal task list. 2 4 1
The Bootstrapper
A copyable task board template gives drag-and-drop statuses, an editable and sortable table view and a small status set, and a status-report template shows team members submitting weekly updates into one shared table — real shared work, but thin planning. A task workload manager template appears in the gallery by title alone. We found no public information on assignments, dependencies, cross-project views, guest access or permissions. 1 2 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
The captured template pages show shared kanban and table views with status tracking, plus a team workflow where members submit weekly updates into one consolidated table — real multi-person surface, but nothing beyond it. We found no public information on assignments, dependencies, cross-project workload views, guest access or role-based permissions, which is what I would need before putting two hundred seats on it. 1 2 4
The UX Purist
Shared, copyable docs are proven — a kanban board with drag-and-drop statuses and a template where team members submit weekly updates into one consolidated view — but planning stays at board level. We found no public information on assignments, dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest access. Real multi-person work happens in the doc; team-level planning is unproven. 1 2 4
The Integrator
A shared kanban board with drag-and-drop statuses and a sortable, editable table view handles the day-to-day, and a team status template where members submit weekly updates that get consolidated into one dashboard is genuine multi-person work. But we found no public information on assignments, dependencies, guest access or capacity views, so it sits between shared task tracking and full team-level planning. 2 4
The Skeptic
The documented multi-person work is a simple copyable task board with drag-and-drop statuses and a template where team members submit weekly updates that the doc consolidates — so a second and third person have a defined place. But we found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload or guest permissions on these pages, and the vendor's own description of the captured board is 'a simple kanban board for tracking tasks'. 1 2 4
Reporting
panel disagrees
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 captured status-report template consolidates team members' weekly updates and uses AI to produce summarized reports, an executive overview and a risk summary. I found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time or budget reporting, utilization, or export formats, so what is documented is per-project status reporting. 4
The Bootstrapper
A team status report template consolidates weekly submissions and layers AI summaries of progress, risks and an executive overview on top, copyable as a doc, and an analytics project dashboard template also appears in the gallery. We found no public information on cross-project rollups, budgets, utilization, filter options, or CSV and other exports. 4 5
The Enterprise Architect
The team status report template consolidates member updates and uses AI to generate summarized reports, executive overviews and risk views, which is genuine reporting capability. We found no public information on cross-project aggregation, budgets, utilization, scheduled delivery or export paths, so I cannot treat reporting as enterprise-ready on this evidence. 4
The UX Purist
A captured status-report template generates AI-written summaries, key insights, an executive overview and a risks view, and AI columns condense progress entries — genuine standard reporting on progress. We found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time tracking, budgets, utilization or exports. 4
The Integrator
The team status report template consolidates members' weekly updates and uses AI to generate summarized reports, risk overviews and an executive summary — more than just looking at a board. But we found no public information on cross-project dashboards, budgets, utilization, filters, or any export path for report data, and the export path is the part that matters when reporting has to feed other tools. 4
The Skeptic
What is evidenced is one status-report template: AI-generated summaries of progress entries, key insights, risks and an executive overview, built from a table of weekly updates. We found no public information on cross-project aggregation, budgets, utilization, filters or any export path, so this stays a fixed per-template status report. 4
Integrations
panel disagrees
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 catalogue of 500+ integrations — including Slack, Jira, Salesforce, Google, AWS, Snowflake, Microsoft Teams and GitHub — connected through Packs, plus a documented, versioned public API with a stated minimum of three months' notice before breaking changes. I found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform support, so I stop just below the highest levels. 6 7 10
The Bootstrapper
Five hundred plus integrations with named, deep connections — syncing Jira dashboards, editing Salesforce records directly, pulling Snowflake data, automating Slack — plus a documented, versioned API with concrete endpoints and a promise of at least three months' notice before breaking changes. We found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform connectors. 6 7 11
The Enterprise Architect
A catalogue of 500+ integrations including Jira, Salesforce, Slack, Snowflake and Google, a Pack system for sharing data and automating workflows, and a versioned public API with a stated commitment to at least 3 months notice before breaking changes — that combination survives my stack review. We found no public information on webhooks, automation-platform coverage or import paths from competitors. 6 7
The UX Purist
500+ integrations with named, specific capabilities — Jira dashboards synced, Salesforce edited in place, Slack bots, Snowflake data — plus a versioned public API with a migration guide and a stated three-month notice before breaking changes. We found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform coverage, so I stop short of the top band. 6 7 11
The Integrator
This is the strongest part of the picture: 500+ integrations with marquee names across data, dev, design and comms, a documented versioned API whose maintainers commit to at least three months notice before breaking changes, and Packs as an extensibility surface for connecting tools and automating workflows. It stops short of the top because the captured pages give no public information on webhooks, automation platforms such as Zapier or Make, or import and export paths in and out of the product. 6 7 10 11
The Skeptic
Five hundred plus integrations with named connections from Snowflake, Salesforce and Jira to Slack, GitHub and HubSpot, a public API with documented endpoints, and a published commitment to at least three months' notice before breaking changes — plus Packs as an extensibility surface for connecting data and automating workflows. We found no public information on webhooks, automation-platform support or import paths from competitors, which is the only reason this is not higher. 6 7 11
Onboarding effort
panel disagrees
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
You can get started for free, copy an existing template as your own doc, and follow a structured learning checklist with three levels from essentials upward. The captured pages do not show how quickly a newcomer reaches a working project or any importer for existing work, so I hold this just below the fastest experience. 1 8 4
The Bootstrapper
A free tier is advertised with "Get started for free", the template gallery lets a team copy a working task board as a doc, a three-level checklist walks learners up from essentials, and an importing-Trello guide appears in the gallery. We found no public information on guided in-app setup or how fast a newcomer reaches a first working project. 1 2 4 8 9
The Enterprise Architect
Signup is free and self-serve, templates copy as docs with a click, and there is a structured learning checklist running from essentials through Level 3. We found no public information on guided setup, trial payment requirements, or importers that pull existing work in, so I cap this below the guided-setup tier. 1 4 8
The UX Purist
Self-serve starts free, templates copy as a doc in one click, and the onboarding checklist runs from Essentials through Level 3 tracks — software that teaches itself in stages, which is exactly what I want to see. We found no public information on whether the trial demands payment details or how quickly a newcomer reaches a working project. 1 2 4 8
The Integrator
A free starting point, templates you can copy straight into your own doc, and a structured learning checklist running from Essentials through Level 3 make a credible self-serve path to a first project. We found no public information on guided in-product setup or importer-driven starts pulling existing work in, so I cannot place it at the fastest end. 1 4 8
The Skeptic
Signup is pitched as 'Get started for free', templates are one-click copies ('Copy doc'), the starter board is deliberately simple, and the vendor publishes a structured learning checklist in three levels. We found no public information on guided setup or importers for existing work, so a first project looks achievable within a day but I cannot claim the hour. 1 2 4 8
European sovereignty
panel opinion
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
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 not rated — no public information
I read the vendor homepage, the documentation hub and the help center and found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, data residency, hosting options, a data processing agreement, transfer impact assessment, or subprocessors. The same pages announce a rebrand to Superhuman Docs without naming the operating entity behind it. From my chair this question is open rather than answered, and until someone shows me where the data lives I score nothing here. 1 10 11
The Bootstrapper not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the vendor's legal jurisdiction, data residency, hosting options, data processing agreement or subprocessors on the captured homepage, product and documentation pages. Nothing lets a buyer verify where the company or the data actually sits. 1 6 10
The Enterprise Architect not rated — no public information
Every dimension — legal jurisdiction, data residency, hosting options, DPA, subprocessors — is marked unknown, and the captured pages, which now carry a "Coda is now Superhuman Docs" banner, give no corporate or hosting details. I found no public information on any of it in the pages I read, and an unevidenced criterion gets no score from me. 1 10 11
The UX Purist not rated — no public information
We found no public information on legal jurisdiction, data residency, hosting options, a data processing agreement or transfer impact assessment — nothing on the captured pages establishes where the company or the data sit. Reported as unevidenced rather than as a failure. 1 10 11
The Integrator not rated — no public information
We found no public information on legal entity jurisdiction, data residency, hosting options, a data processing agreement or a transfer impact assessment — every sovereignty attribute came back unknown. I read the homepage, documentation and support pages and none of them speak to where the company or the data actually sit. 1 10 11
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the vendor's legal jurisdiction, data residency, hosting options, DPA or transfer impact assessment on any captured page — every sovereignty attribute is unrecorded. I read the homepage, integrations and documentation pages and none addresses where the company or the data sits. 1 6 11
Support & documentation
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a stuck user gets unstuck: docs quality, support channels and their availability per plan, and the health of the learning surface.
0 — No docs beyond marketing pages; support is a contact form that may answer.
3 — Docs exist but are thin or stale; support on entry plans is effectively email-only with slow turnaround.
5 — Searchable help center covering the core product; chat or email support on all plans with reasonable response times.
8 — Deep, current docs incl. onboarding guides and templates; fast chat support not gated to top tiers; visible changelog.
10 — Docs, academy, community and support so good they are a reason to buy; SLAs published, support quality independent of plan.
The Data Protection Officer
A help center, a contact-support channel and a community are present, with documentation reaching even an Admin Audit API, alongside a structured learning checklist for new users. I found no public information on response times, chat availability, or how support differs by plan, so a solid but unproven middle level is what the evidence supports. 10 11 8
The Bootstrapper
A help center, a contact support link and a community are all reachable, documentation includes an admin audit API reference, and a structured onboarding checklist teaches the product in three levels. We found no public information on support response times, chat availability by plan, SLAs or a changelog. 8 10 11
The Enterprise Architect
There is a help center, a community, a contact-support channel, a three-level learning checklist, and documented Admin Audit API events — the audit trail documentation is exactly what I look for. We found no public information on response times, chat availability per plan, SLAs or a changelog, so I cannot move this into the fast-support tier. 8 10 11
The UX Purist
A help center, community and contact support are all present, alongside a three-level learning checklist, an API migration guide and admin-audit documentation — documentation deep enough to teach, which I value highly. We found no public information on response times, per-plan support channels or a visible changelog. 7 8 10 11
The Integrator
A help center, a community, a contact-support channel and admin audit API documentation are all present, and the learning surface includes a leveled onboarding checklist. We found no public information on response times, chat availability by plan, SLAs or a visible changelog. 8 10 11
The Skeptic
A help center, a contact-support link, a community, an admin audit API documentation page, real API docs with a migration guide, and a three-level learning checklist are all evidenced. We found no public information on support channels per plan, response times, SLAs or a visible changelog, so I cannot place this higher than mid-band. 7 8 10 11
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
The only pricing statement the captured pages give is "Get started for free". I found no public information on paid plan prices, billing periods, seat minimums or tax treatment, so a buyer cannot determine the real cost for a team from what is published. 1
The Bootstrapper
The only price on the captured pages is "Get started for free" — a genuine free tier, which I value. But we found no public information on paid tier prices, seat minimums, billing periods or tax treatment, so a buyer pricing three seats or thirty has no number to work from before talking to the vendor. 1 6
The Enterprise Architect
The only pricing fact captured is "Get started for free"; we found no public information on paid tiers, per-seat prices, billing periods, seat minimums or tax treatment. I cannot size a two-hundred-seat deployment from this, and that alone would stall it in procurement. 1
The UX Purist
The only public price signal is "Get started for free"; we found no public information on paid tiers, billing periods or tax treatment. A buyer cannot determine what a team would actually pay before talking to anyone. 1
The Integrator
The only pricing signal captured is the homepage's 'Get started for free' — a real free tier. Beyond that we found no public information on paid tier prices, billing periods, seat minimums or tax treatment, so a buyer cannot determine the payable cost before talking to the vendor. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing statement on any captured page is 'Get started for free'. We found no public information on paid tiers, seat prices, billing periods or tax treatment, so a buyer cannot determine the payable cost for their team from what was captured. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Coda
Is Coda European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Coda is based.
Where does Coda store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Coda have a free plan?
Yes. Coda has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Coda?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates awork (4/5), InLoox (4/5) and Kantree (4/5) highest among the other 64 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: Coda alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 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.
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (coda.io, coda.io/@codatemplates/task-board, coda.io/@andrew-farnsworth/task-workload-manager, coda.io/@rishad/team-status-report-dashboard, coda.io/@vayner-analytics/analytics-project-dashboard, coda.io/product/integrations and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 19 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
- 9 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
- 7 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
- 3 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
- 1 pricing 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
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Reporting — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Reporting — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Support & documentation — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Support & documentation — found from sitemap coda.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →