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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Assumes the marketing is lying until the evidence says otherwise. Hunts lock-in, dark patterns, hidden cost and dead changelogs. Exists to keep the rest of the panel honest.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 →