Project Management & Collaboration

Easy Project

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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.

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Bootstrapper v1.2 · The Enterprise Architect v1.0 · The UX Purist v1.0 · The Integrator v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.2 · rubric v1 · evaluated 16 Sep 2026

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 Bootstrapper

Weighted verdict

Pays with their own card. Optimizes for price/value at 3 seats and at 30, a usable free tier, and a price page that answers instead of qualifying. Rejects hidden seat minimums and "contact sales".

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Bootstrapper

Collaboration depth

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Reporting

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Onboarding effort

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Support & documentation

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built 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

Do you know more about Easy Project? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →