Project Management & Collaboration
Easy Project
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 Easy Software · www.easyproject.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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Easy Project, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
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
Unlimited projects and Earned Value Management imply team-scale, cross-project planning exists, yet the evidence never evidences assignments, comments, dependencies, workload views or guest access — silence on the criterion's core surfaces caps this below rubric level 5. 2
The Bootstrapper
For a product categorized as PM & Collaboration, the evidence evidences not one collaboration mechanic — no assignments, comments, shared timeline, dependencies, workload view, or guest access; all I have is 'unlimited projects', custom fields, and EVM, sold to 1,000+ companies. Per my rules that silence means those capabilities aren't on record, so it sits at the share-and-assign floor with nothing above it proven. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Unlimited projects and custom fields with formulas evidence real project structure, but the evidence is silent on the entire multiplayer surface — no assignments, comments, dependencies, workload or guest access anywhere. I cannot buy a 200-seat collaboration tool on this evidence; silence on permissions and shared planning caps it at per-person planning. 2 1
The UX Purist
The evidence evidences 'unlimited projects' and per-user pricing, and not one shared-work surface — no assignments, comments, dependencies, workload view or guest access anywhere. By my rule that unevidenced means absent, a second user has no defined place in this product as documented. 1 2
The Integrator
Unlimited projects and Earned Value Management prove a real multi-project product, but the evidence is silent on every collaboration mechanic — assignments, comments, shared timelines, workload, guest access. No evidenced team-level planning view, so it sits at shareable-tasks depth; the silences are information. 2
The Skeptic
For a 'Project Management & Collaboration' product, the evidence evidences exactly one relevant fact — 'Unlimited projects' — with nothing on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload or guest access. Per-seat pricing implies teams exist in the product, but not a single collaborative mechanic is on record, so I can't take it above 'shared tasks unevidenced' territory. 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
EVM is genuine budget-and-schedule reporting and custom fields with formulas give configurable metrics, which goes beyond 'standard reports' — but no export path, dashboard, or time/utilization evidence appears anywhere, and I cannot credit what is not on record. 2
The Bootstrapper
Earned Value Management is genuine budget-grade reporting and custom fields with formulas add configurability, which lifts it past the 'no budget depth' tier. But nothing on exports, dashboards, time tracking, utilization, or scheduled delivery is evidenced, so it can't approach the 8 anchor. 2
The Enterprise Architect
Earned Value Management is genuinely serious progress/budget machinery, and custom fields with formulas support it. But nothing evidences cross-project dashboards, time or utilization depth, and no export path at all — for my file, a reporting capability I cannot export is a capability I cannot audit. 2
The UX Purist
Earned Value Management and custom fields with formulas show real per-project progress/budget measurement, which beats a bare status board. But there is zero evidence of cross-project aggregation, dashboards, time tracking or any export path — the question 'how is the portfolio doing' goes unanswered. 2
The Integrator
Earned Value Management plus custom fields with formulas is genuine budget depth and configurability, above the fixed-status tier. But nothing evidences exports, dashboards, or API access to metrics — a report I can't export doesn't exist for me, so 8 is out of reach. 2
The Skeptic
Earned Value Management is a real cross-project cost/schedule discipline, so this isn't just a board with status colors — but that's where the evidence stops. No export, no dashboard, no time-tracking or filter evidence anywhere; 'Custom Fields With Formulas' is data modeling, not answers about the work. 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 'powerful API' plus an official n8n partnership claiming 1,800+ ready-made integrations, alongside native GitLab/GitHub, takes automation-platform coverage past 'partial' — but webhooks, import-from-competitor paths, and a native catalogue beyond dev tooling are all unevidenced. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
An official n8n partnership claiming 1,800+ ready-made integrations plus a 'powerful API' and native GitLab/GitHub is real automation-platform coverage, above the partial tier. Missing: any evidence of the common set (calendar, Slack/Teams, storage), webhooks, or a competitor import path. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
A claimed 'powerful API' plus an official n8n partnership with 1,800+ integrations and GitLab/GitHub covers the automation-platform leg well. Missing: calendar/comms/storage natives, webhooks, and any import path from competitors; and I note total silence on SSO/SCIM, which at two hundred seats is the integration I actually need. 1 2
The UX Purist
An official n8n partnership claiming 1,800+ integrations plus a 'powerful API' and native GitLab/GitHub is genuinely first-class automation-platform coverage. But the evidenced native catalogue is two integrations deep, and webhooks, calendar/comms hooks and import paths from competitors are all absent from the evidence. 1 2
The Integrator
The official n8n partnership with 1,800+ integrations out of the box, plus GitLab/GitHub and a claimed 'powerful API', gives first-class automation coverage beyond the partial tier. But webhooks, a documented API surface, and any import/export or competitor-migration path are entirely unevidenced, which caps it well short of 8. 1 2
The Skeptic
An official n8n partnership with 1,800+ ready-made integrations plus native GitLab/GitHub is more than a marquee pair, so I'll grant the mid-anchor. But the API is only attested by homepage marketing copy ('a powerful API') with zero documentation evidence, and there's nothing on webhooks, calendar/comms hooks, or import paths out of competitors — the 1,800+ is n8n's catalogue, not the vendor's own work. 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 self-serve trial with no credit card and a 30-day money-back guarantee get a team in the door, but nothing evidences templates, guided setup or importers, and the product's own pitch (custom fields with formulas, EVM, on-prem options) signals real configuration before first value. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
The trial needs no credit card and there's a 30-day money-back guarantee, which is genuinely frictionless on payment. But not a single fact about guided setup, templates, defaults, or importers, and the annual-only tiers plus contact-sales Enterprise smell sales-led — so a first-day project is plausible, an first-hour one is unevidenced. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Trial without credit card and a 30-day money-back guarantee remove the signup friction. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates or importers, and a product carrying EVM and formula-driven custom fields smells like configuration-before-value — the exact judgment a newcomer cannot yet make. 1 2
The UX Purist
The trial with no credit card and a 30-day money-back guarantee is the one kind gesture at the door. After signup the record goes silent: no templates, no guided setup, no importers, no defaults — nothing that tells me a newcomer reaches a working project in an hour rather than a week. 1 2
The Integrator
Trial without a credit card and a 30-day money-back guarantee remove payment friction, which is worth something. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates, sensible defaults, or importers pulling existing work in — so I can't credit the hour-to-value anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
The no-credit-card trial and 30-day money-back guarantee are genuine friction reducers, confirmed twice. But there is not one word about guided setup, templates, importers or time-to-value, and a 99.9%-SLA, dedicated-CSM enterprise motion hints the real deployments need hand-holding — self-serve exists, speed to value is unproven. 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
Easy Software sits in Prague with a 'Made in the EU' posture, geo-located cloud including EU residency, plus private cloud, managed server and full on-premises — for those deployment modes I can answer exactly where the data lives. But there is no DPA, no subprocessor list and no deletion guarantee on record, US/Canadian residency options mean EU treatment must be contractually pinned, and the structured sovereignty section is empty; strong substance, unproven paperwork. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
A Prague vendor, 'Made in the EU', GDPR compliance, ISO 27001/27017, geo-located EU cloud plus private cloud, managed server, and full on-premises with open-source code audits — that's substance, and on-prem is the ultimate escape hatch. It stops short of 8 because there's no public DPA or subprocessor list on record, and residency is offered as EU/CAN/US/'others' with no stated EU default, so extraterritorial exposure is asserted away rather than documented. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
European vendor in Prague, made-in-EU, EU residency available, on-premises and private cloud options, ISO 27001/27017 and open-source code audits — the on-prem path alone kills most subprocessor exposure and is procurement gold. It falls short of full marks because no public DPA or subprocessor list is in evidence, residency is also offered in US/CAN without a stated EU default, and the evidence records no formal sovereignty attributes. 1 2
The UX Purist
Czech vendor, Made in EU, on-premises, private cloud and geo-located EU hosting with GDPR and ISO 27001/27017 — the substance is European. It stops short of the 8 anchor because the evidence lists no public DPA and no subprocessor documentation, and residency is offered across EU, CAN and US with no stated EU default. 1 2
The Integrator
Czech vendor, 'Made in the EU', EU among the offered residency regions, and on-premises/private cloud/managed server options — the on-prem path removes subprocessor exposure entirely. What's missing is a public DPA and any subprocessor list, so remaining exposure is asserted rather than documented; that keeps it below 8. 1 2
The Skeptic
Czech vendor, 'Made in the EU', on-premises, private cloud and EU residency options with ISO 27001/27017 — that's substance, not just GDPR paperwork. But the registry explicitly records 'no sovereignty attributes on record', residency is also sold in US/CAN/'others' with no stated EU default, and there is no public DPA or subprocessor list anywhere in this evidence, which is exactly what rubric level 8 demands. 1 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
An online knowledgebase, customer service desk, dedicated CSM and a published 99.9% cloud uptime SLA clear the bar for existence at rubric level 5 — but the evidence says nothing about doc depth or currency, chat availability per plan, response times, or a visible changelog. 2
The Bootstrapper
An online knowledgebase, a customer service desk, and a published 99.9% cloud uptime SLA are evidenced — that clears the help-center-plus-support-channel bar. No chat availability per plan, no response times, no changelog or docs-depth evidence, and a dedicated CSM reads as top-tier gating, so it stays at 5. 2
The Enterprise Architect
Online knowledgebase, customer service desk, dedicated CSM and a published 99.9% cloud uptime SLA clear the basic bar. But that SLA is uptime, not support response; no changelog, academy or community is evidenced, and whether the CSM exists below the Enterprise tier is unstated — exactly the fine print I check before committing two hundred seats. 2
The UX Purist
An online knowledgebase, customer service desk, dedicated CSM and a published 99.9% uptime SLA clear the basic bar. But nothing evidences doc depth, searchable current content, response-time commitments, or that the dedicated CSM isn't gated to top-tier buyers. 2
The Integrator
An online knowledgebase, customer service desk, dedicated CSM and a published 99.9% cloud uptime SLA clear the basic bar. But nothing shows doc depth or currency, there's no changelog, no per-plan response commitments — and for me specifically, zero evidenced API documentation. 2
The Skeptic
A knowledgebase, a 'Customer Service desk' and a dedicated CSM are claimed, but the CSM smells like an enterprise gate and nothing evidences docs depth, currency, response times or support availability per plan. Worse, the product is mid-rebrand (Easy Redmine/Easy Project → Easy8), which typically means documentation strewn across dead brand names, and there's no changelog in sight. 1 2
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 Bootstrapper
Two self-serve tiers are publicly priced with 'billed annually' stated, Enterprise is honestly marked contact-sales, and the trial takes no card — structurally the 5 anchor. 2
The Enterprise Architect
Self-serve tiers are priced with the billing period stated and Enterprise is contact-us, which is tolerable. 2
The UX Purist
Two self-serve tiers carry real numbers (Essentials €6.90, Platform €25.90 per user/month) and even on-premises is priced, which is respectable. But the headline is annual-only with no monthly figure stated, tax treatment is unmentioned, and the Enterprise tier is an opaque 'Contact us' doing real work — rubric level 5 almost verbatim. 2
The Skeptic
Add annual-only billing with no monthly option stated, silent tax treatment, and an opaque 'Contact sales' Enterprise tier, and the real cost is undiscoverable without a call. 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU optional ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 2 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 — Legal entity, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. EU storage is guaranteed only for EU organisations per the GDPR page ([S5]: "If you are an EU organisation, it is guaranteed that your Easy8 instance... are stored within the EU") and the pricing page offers US/CAN and other regions, so the actual region depends on the customer's choice or contract.
- 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.
- 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
- 20 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
- 14 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
- 9 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
- 2 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 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.easyproject.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.easyproject.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page www.easy8.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.easy8.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.easy8.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.easy8.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →