Project Management & Collaboration
factro
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Schuchert Managementberatung GmbH & Co. KG · www.factro.de
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
factro is a German-language project-management tool from Schuchert Managementberatung GmbH & Co. KG of Bochum (Amtsgericht Bochum, HRA 4335), with persona-weighted totals spanning 3.3 to 4.9. It is strongest at getting started: onboarding effort scores 5-6 and pricing transparency 5-7, resting on a free Basic tier (3 users, 5 projects), a "Kostenlos testen" offer, and public prices — Business €19.99 and Professional €29.99 per user/month, each ab 3 Benutzern. It is weakest at support & documentation, where the entire evidenced support surface is one email address and one phone number, and at reporting, fixed views with no export, time, budget or utilization path. Collaboration depth and integrations sit flat at 4: shared planning is real, but comments, dependencies, workload and guest access are unevidenced, and the catalogue is Microsoft-only plus an undocumented API tagline. The genuine spread is pricing transparency (5 versus 7) and reporting (3 versus 4) — judges crediting or discounting the same public prices and fixed views; sovereignty runs 3-4, with product data residency unknown and the privacy policy conceding possible US CLOUD Act-style access for website tools.
Speaks for it
- Free Basic tier capped at 3 users and 5 projects, plus a 'Kostenlos testen' offer, so a small team starts without a sales call
- Business (€19.99) and Professional (€29.99) per user/month prices and 3-user minimums stated publicly on the pricing page
- Native MS Teams, SharePoint and Outlook integration on Business and iCal sync on Professional, confirmed on the pricing page
- Verifiably German legal entity — Amtsgericht Bochum registers (HRA 4335, HRB 7329) and German VAT ID DE195166719
- Professional tier lists SSO/SAML and mandatory 2FA (2FA-Pflicht)
Held against it
- Entire evidenced support surface is one email address (info@factro.de) and one phone number, with no help center, docs, changelog or per-plan commitments
- No export path and no time, budget or utilization reporting; the table view is pitched for 'fokussierte Auswertung', not planning
- Comments, dependencies, workload views and guest access are entirely unevidenced beyond shared planning
- Product data residency is unknown, no product DPA is evidenced (only a Google Analytics DPA), and ownership control is undisclosed
- The 'factro API – Offen für alles' tagline has no documented scope, with no webhooks, automation platforms or competitor import path in evidence
Best for
- You run a small German-speaking team of up to 3 users that wants a free starting point (Basic, 5 projects) before committing
- Your team already works inside the Microsoft stack, since MS Teams, SharePoint and Outlook are natively offered
- You need self-computable per-seat pricing, with Business and Professional prices and 3-user minimums stated publicly
- You require a vendor with a verifiably German legal entity (Bochum seat, Amtsgericht registers, German VAT ID)
Avoid if
- You depend on self-serve documentation, a help center or a changelog — the evidenced support surface is one email address and one phone number
- You need exports or time, budget and utilization reporting rather than fixed cockpit and table views
- Your procurement cannot sign off without a product DPA and a stated product data residency — both are absent, ownership is undisclosed and US subprocessor exposure on the website is conceded
- Your integrations run beyond the Microsoft bundle and an undocumented API — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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
There is real shared planning: a live structure tree, a timeline with milestone early-warning, and a LIVE project cockpit. But nothing evidences comments, guest/client access, dependencies, or workload views, and the only cross-project surface is the personal 'Meine Aufgaben' desk — so this sits between rubric level 3 and 5, closer to shared-but-thin. 3
The Bootstrapper
The structure tree, live timeline and cross-project cockpit give a real shared planning surface, and 'Meine Aufgaben' implies per-user assignment — that's beyond per-person planning. But nothing in the evidence evidences comments, dependencies, workload views or guest access, so the team model is half-proven. 3
The Enterprise Architect
There is real shared planning here — a real-time structure tree, a shared timeline with milestones and early-warning shifts, and a live cockpit across projects — which clears the 'planning stays per-person' floor. But comments, dependencies, workload/capacity and guest or client access are entirely unevidenced, and the per-user plan minimums are the only proof a second person has a defined place. 3 4
The UX Purist
The structure tree is real-time and team-facing ('Dein Team weiß, wo Ihr steht'), with a live cockpit and a cross-project 'Meine Aufgaben' desk — planning is genuinely shared, above per-person boards. But the evidence is silent on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload/capacity and guest access, which rubric level 5 requires, so it sits between shared tasks and first-class team planning. 3 4
The Integrator
Real-time shared planning is marketed — Strukturbaum, a cross-project LIVE cockpit, and 'Meine Aufgaben' aggregating your tasks from all projects — plus multi-user plans from 3 users. But there is zero evidence of comments, dependencies, workload/capacity views or guest access, so I can't credit this past solid per-project teamwork with one team-level view. 3 4
The Skeptic
Marketing shows a real-time task tree, a shared timeline with milestone early-warnings, and a cross-project cockpit — more than a personal list, and better than rubric level 3's per-person planning. But nowhere in the evidence does an assignment, a comment, a permission scheme or guest access appear; when the marketing copy itself won't claim comments or permissions, I won't assume they exist. 3 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
Reporting appears to be a live status cockpit plus a table view the vendor itself says is 'for fokussierte Auswertung' rather than planning. Fixed per-project status views only: no export path, no time, budget, or utilization, and no cross-project aggregation is evidenced anywhere. 3
The Bootstrapper
The cockpit shows the live status of multiple projects and the table view is pitched for detailed evaluation, so it's more than a per-project status board. But there's zero evidence of exports, time tracking, budgets or utilization — I can look at answers, not extract them. 3
The Enterprise Architect
What's evidenced is a live status cockpit plus a table view the vendor itself says is for 'fokussierte Auswertung' — fixed status views, in other words. No time, budget or utilization reporting, no dashboards, no export path of any kind appears in the evidence; for anything above rubric level 3 I would need at least one export or aggregation capability on paper. 3
The UX Purist
The cockpit shows the live status of your projects in aggregate and the table view is explicitly pitched for 'fokussierte Auswertung mit allen Details' — more than a fixed per-project board. But there is zero evidence of time, budget or utilization reporting, filters, or any export path; the tool answers questions only by being looked at. 3
The Integrator
The cockpit gives a live cross-project status view and the table is pitched as 'fokussierte Auswertung mit allen Details', which clears fixed per-project status. But no time, budget or utilization reporting and no export path is evidenced anywhere — and an API mentioned in one marketing line does not count as a reporting surface. 3
The Skeptic
The only reporting on record is a table view the vendor itself demotes to 'nicht für die Planung... für fokussierte Auswertung' plus a live cockpit status view — fixed views, nothing more. No export path, no time, budget or utilization anywhere in the evidence; not one number demonstrably leaves the tool. 3
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 factro API is asserted ('Offen für alles') and MS Teams/SharePoint/Outlook are natively offered, with iCal sync gated to Professional. But the catalogue is Microsoft-only, and the evidence is silent on API documentation depth, webhooks, automation platforms, and any import path — I cannot credit what is only marketed. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
A public API is claimed plus Teams, SharePoint, Outlook and iCal — and the Microsoft bundle and calendar sync are plan-gated, which stings on the free tier. No Slack, no webhooks, no automation platforms, no competitor import path in evidence, so it falls short of the common-set anchor. 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
A factro API is announced ('Offen für alles'), and MS Teams, SharePoint, Outlook and iCal sync are native and tied to named plans — the Microsoft-centric common set. But the API evidence is a homepage tagline, not documentation, and webhooks, automation platforms and import paths from competitors are entirely absent from the evidence. 3 4
The UX Purist
A factro API exists ('Offen für alles') plus native MS Teams, SharePoint, Outlook and iCal sync — though iCal sits behind the Professional tier. The API's actual coverage is one marketing line, and there's no evidence of webhooks, automation platforms (Zapier/Make) or import paths from competitors — a handful of marquee hooks, not a documented surface. 3 4
The Integrator
An API is claimed — 'factro API Offen für alles' — alongside native Teams, SharePoint, Outlook and iCal sync, though gated to Business/Professional tiers. The catalogue is Microsoft-heavy, there is no evidence of webhooks, Zapier/Make-class automation platforms, or any import/export path from competitors, and the API has no documented surface in the registry — that's a sentence, not an integration story. 3 4
The Skeptic
Teams, SharePoint, Outlook and iCal sync are confirmed on the pricing page — but that's the Microsoft stack and nothing else, and the API is a marketing tagline ('factro API – Offen für alles') with no documented scope, no webhooks, no automation platforms, no competitor import path. A handful of marquee logos plus an unverifiable API promise sits between rubric level 3 and 5. 3 4
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 genuinely free Basic tier (3 users, 5 projects) plus 'Starte kostenlos' means a small team can begin without payment details or a sales call. What's missing is any evidence of guided setup, templates, or importers to pull existing work in — so better than a day-one-with-docs posture, but I cannot honestly reach rubric level 8. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
A free Basic tier with 3 users and 5 projects plus 'Starte kostenlos' means my exact three-seat team can begin without a card. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates or importers, so I can't credit the minutes-to-value anchor. 4 3
The Enterprise Architect
A genuinely free tier (€0, up to 3 users, 5 projects) plus 'Kostenlos testen' means a small team can start without payment details, which is better than the rubric level 5 condition. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates or importers, so I can't credit the 'inside an hour with sensible defaults' level on assertion alone. 4 3
The UX Purist
Best thing on the evidence: a genuinely free tier with 3 users and 5 projects, 'Starte kostenlos' with no payment details — a small team can be working in minutes. But nothing evidences templates, importers or guided setup, so first value still hinges on a newcomer building structure from a blank page; the tool doesn't show evidence of teaching itself. 3 4
The Integrator
A genuinely free Basic tier (3 users, 5 projects) plus 'Kostenlos testen' means a small team starts without a sales call or payment details. What's missing is any evidence of templates, importers or guided setup that would let me credit hour-to-value and tool-assisted migration. 3 4
The Skeptic
A genuinely free tier (3 users, 5 projects) plus 'Kostenlos testen' means a small team can start without a sales call — that much is real and better than a bare trial. But nothing evidences templates, guided setup or importers, and whether the trial demands payment details is unstated, so I cap it at 'first project within a day'. 3 4
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
The entity is verifiably German (Amtsgericht Bochum, HRA 4335, German VAT ID), but nowhere is the residency of factro project data stated — the only hosting reference (Bajorat Media, Lage) and the entire subprocessor list concern the marketing website, not the product. Even there the vendor concedes US providers (HubSpot, TruConversion, Vimeo, CleanTalk) and possible CLOUD Act-style access it has 'no influence' over, and no product DPA is evidenced; an application whose data location I cannot answer gets no benefit of the doubt. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
A German KG in Bochum with a German web host and EU-pinned CleanTalk data is a real start. But the evidence is silent on where factro's own project data resides, shows no product DPA, leaves ownership control unknown, and the vendor concedes possible US government access via its tooling — GDPR paperwork without the residency substance. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
The company side is solid — a German Kommanditgesellschaft seated in Bochum with German registers and a German website host — but product data residency is unknown, no product DPA is evidenced (only a Google Analytics DPA), and the privacy policy concedes US-tool CLOUD Act exposure via HubSpot, TruConversion, Vimeo and CleanTalk. Ownership control is flagged as not disclosed in the imprint; that is compliance paperwork over substance from where I sit. 1 2
The UX Purist
Unambiguously a German company — Bochum seat, Amtsgericht Bochum, German VAT ID — which beats compliance theater. But the evidence says nothing about where product data resides, ownership control is unlisted, and the vendor concedes possible US CLOUD Act-style access it has no influence over for its US subprocessors (HubSpot, TruConversion, Vimeo): asserted Europe, unverified data. 1 2
The Integrator
The entity is verifiably European — Bochum KG with HRA/HRB registers, German VAT ID, German general partner and managing director — so the anchor-3 condition of US hosting or non-European ownership does not hold. But product data residency is stated nowhere, no product DPA is evidenced, and the privacy policy itself concedes possible US-government-style access it has no influence over while routing visitor data through HubSpot and TruConversion — paperwork over substance on the product itself. 1 2
The Skeptic
The German entity checks out — HRA/HRB register numbers, Bochum seat, German Geschäftsführer — so this is not a mailbox, which lifts it above rubric level 3. But the evidence is silent on where factro's product data actually resides, there is no product DPA, ownership is 'unknown', and the vendor concedes possible US CLOUD-Act-style access it 'has no influence over' for unnamed tools while feeding visitor and customer data to HubSpot Inc. and TruConversion (US session replay) on its own website. 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
A named email address and a German phone number in the imprint are more than a bare contact form, but that is the entire evidenced support surface. No help center, documentation, chat, SLA, or changelog appears anywhere in the evidence — absence is the finding here. 2
The Bootstrapper
Support evidence is an email address and a phone number in the imprint — real humans, probably, but nothing more. No help center, no docs, no changelog, no per-plan support commitments appear anywhere, and missing docs are the deciding fact. 2
The Enterprise Architect
The entire evidenced support surface is an imprint email address and a phone number. No help center, no docs, no changelog, no SLA, no per-plan support differentiation — for a two-hundred-seat deployment I cannot answer how a stuck admin gets unstuck, and that caps this near the floor. 2
The UX Purist
Support is an email address and a phone number — that is the entire evidenced support surface. No help center, no guides, no academy, no changelog, no SLA appears anywhere in the registry; a stuck user has no self-serve way to get unstuck, which is the part that costs a score its legs. 2
The Integrator
The registry shows a single email address and a phone number — no help center, no API documentation, no changelog, nothing per plan. A product whose API is marketed as 'Offen für alles' with no documented surface anywhere is below even thin-docs; a phone line is the only thing lifting it off the floor. 2 3
The Skeptic
Support is one email address and one phone number in the imprint — respectable for a German Mittelständler, but the entire captured surface is four pages and contains no help center, no documentation, no changelog, nothing a stuck user reads. If a docs site existed worth citing, the evidence would show it; I treat its absence as the information it is. 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 Data Protection Officer
Basic (€0), Business (€19.99/user/month) and Professional (€29.99/user/month) prices and the 3-seat minimums are plainly public. But 'Bequeme jährliche Zahlung' leaves unclear whether those headlines assume annual payment, VAT treatment is never stated, and Government sits behind 'Beratung anfragen' — the headline number still needs qualifying. 4
The Bootstrapper
The page answers my questions: a free tier capped at 3 users/5 projects, Business at €19.99 and Professional at €29.99 per user/month with minimums stated openly, and invoice payment possible. But the only billing statement is 'annual payment', so the monthly-vs-annual headline is ambiguous, tax treatment is unaddressed, and Government is contact-sales — close to full transparency, not there. 4
The Enterprise Architect
Every self-serve tier carries a public number — Basic €0 (3 users, 5 projects), Business €19.99 and Professional €29.99 per user/month with stated minimums — so I can compute a 200-seat cost myself. It falls short of rubric level 8 because tax treatment is never stated, the monthly-vs-annual delta behind 'bequeme jährliche Zahlung' is unclear, and the Government tier is contact-sales. 4
The UX Purist
Free Basic (3 users, 5 projects), Business at €19.99 and Professional at €29.99 per user/month with seat minimums stated right on the page, annual billing with invoice payment possible — a buyer can nearly compute the invoice alone. Docked because the billing-period nuance is fuzzy (is the headline annual-only?), tax treatment is never stated, and the Government tier is pure contact-sales. 4
The Integrator
Basic, Business and Professional are fully priced per user with seat minimums and project caps plainly on the page, and the quote-only Government tier is arguably genuine public-sector consulting. But the headline per-user prices lean on annual billing ('Bequeme jährliche Zahlung') with the monthly alternative and tax treatment unqualified, so the number on the page still needs qualifying before it's the number on the invoice. 4
The Skeptic
Basic free (3 users), Business €19.99 and Professional €29.99 per user with the 3-user floor stated openly — that part is honest. But the page sells 'bequeme jährliche Zahlung', so whether those headline numbers survive monthly billing is unqualified, VAT treatment is never stated, and the Government tier is pure 'Beratung anfragen' doing real work — the headline is not yet the number on the invoice. 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 DE | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 5 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 — Data residency. Storage locations appear only in a 2018 blog post (marketing copy) rather than in the privacy policy or a data processing agreement, and the data center operators are not named.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as 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.
- 13 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
- 2 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
- 1 legal 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
- 1 subprocessors 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Privacy policy www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Imprint www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Vendor homepage www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Vendor pricing page www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page www.factro.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →