whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

factro

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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 Enterprise Architect

Weighted verdict

Buys for two hundred seats and answers for it later. Optimizes for SSO/SCIM, permissions, audit trails, certifications and a clean exit. Rejects anything that cannot survive procurement.

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

Scored by The Enterprise Architect

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 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.

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

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.

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

Sources (9)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Privacy policy www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Imprint www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Vendor homepage www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Vendor pricing page www.factro.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Security / trust page www.factro.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.factro.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →