Project Management & Collaboration
Favro
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Favro AB · www.favro.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.
The panel's verdict
Favro, a Swedish project management tool, scores highest on integrations, on two-way sync with Jira, Miro and Unito, GitHub and GitLab, Zapier, webhooks, and an API with published per-plan rate limits, docked for a missing native Slack/Teams option. Onboarding follows at 6-7 on a 14-day, no-credit-card trial of any paid plan with Google/GitHub SSO on all plans. Weak points: reporting, flat at 4 because 'Reports and Timesheet reporting' sit behind the Enterprise tier with no dashboards or export path evidenced; and support & documentation at 2-4, where the registry shows no help center, docs or changelog and the 24-hour weekday response is Enterprise-only. The split is collaboration depth: the skeptic refused to credit a registry silent on comments, dependencies and workload/capacity views, while the integrator scored 7 on real-time planning, guest accounts and unlimited collections. Sovereignty sits 5-6: EU hosting, backups at at least three EU locations and ISO audits earn credit, but the vendor frames the EU-only pledge as temporary, suppliers may process outside the EU/EEA, and no subprocessor list is public.
Speaks for it
- Integrations score 7-8, on two-way Jira, Miro and Unito sync, GitHub, GitLab, Zapier, outgoing webhooks and published per-plan API rate limits (1,000-10,000 calls/hour)
- Onboarding effort scores 6-7, on a 14-day trial of any paid plan with no credit card and SSO via Google and GitHub on all plans
- EU-region hosting with encrypted backups to at least three EU locations and ISO/IEC 27001 and 27701 audits
- Lite ($5.1/user) and Standard ($6.8/user) carry public per-user prices with a stated -15% annual discount
- Real-time collaborative planning with guest accounts on Standard, unlimited collections, and SAFe 6.0 framework support
Held against it
- Reporting is flat at 4: 'Reports and Timesheet reporting' are Enterprise-only, with no dashboards, report export or report API evidenced
- Support & documentation scores 2-4: no help center, documentation or changelog in the registry; support tiers are Basic/Standard/Custom and the 24-hour weekday response is Enterprise-only
- Headline prices are annual-billed ($5.1 /user -15%), tax treatment is never stated, and Enterprise is 'Tailored pricing'
- The EU-only residency pledge is explicitly temporary ('until we have implemented customer choice'), suppliers may sit outside the EU/EEA, and no subprocessor list is published
- No native Slack/Teams integration appears, and the evidence is silent on comments, dependencies and workload/capacity views
Best for
- You need deep two-way integration with a dev and design stack — Jira, GitHub, GitLab, Miro, Unito, Zapier, webhooks — where the bench scored it highest
- You want self-serve entry: a 14-day trial of any paid plan with no credit card and Google/GitHub SSO on all plans
- You want EU-region hosting today, with encrypted backups at at least three EU locations and ISO/IEC 27001/27701 audits, accepting a time-limited EU-only pledge
- You run SAFe 6.0-style cross-team planning with guest accounts and collections
Avoid if
- You need reports, timesheets, dashboards or any report export outside the Enterprise tier — reporting scores 4
- Your team depends on self-serve help docs, a chat channel or a published support response time below Enterprise — support & documentation scores 2-4
- You require a durable EU-only guarantee: the pledge runs 'until we have implemented customer choice', suppliers may process outside the EU/EEA, and no subprocessor list is public
- You need native Slack/Teams integration or documented dependencies and workload/capacity views, which the evidence never evidences
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
Real-time collaborative planning with guest accounts on Standard and unlimited collections points to solid shared projects, but the evidence never evidences dependencies, workload/capacity views, or client-level permissions — the planning surface is asserted, not specified. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Live real-time planning, guest accounts on Standard, and collections that group boards across the org — plus SAFe 6.0 support pointing at cross-team planning — get partway to first-class team planning. But the evidence never evidences assignments, dependencies, comments, or any workload/capacity view, so I cap it between solid-shared-projects and true cross-project depth. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Real-time collaborative planning, guest accounts, unlimited collections and SAFe 6.0 support evidence genuine multi-team work, but the evidence is silent on dependencies, workload/capacity views and how guest permissions are scoped — I won't sign off on capabilities that aren't documented. 1 2
The UX Purist
Real-time shared planning ("Planning and writing is always live, collaborative and in real-time") plus guest accounts and collections on Standard clears the 5-anchor, and SAFe 6.0 support hints at scaled planning. But the evidence never evidences dependencies, workload or capacity views, so I can't credit the 8-anchor. 1 2
The Integrator
Real-time collaborative planning, guest accounts on Standard, and unlimited collections (a real cross-project layer) plus SAFe 6.0 support push this past basic shared boards. But workload/capacity views, dependencies and comment threads are nowhere evidenced in the evidence, so I can't grant the 8 anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
Real-time collaborative planning, guest accounts, and SAFe 6.0 support are confirmed, which clears basic shared work. But the registry never evidences comments, dependencies, workload/capacity views, or a shared timeline — for a project management tool, that silence is telling, so I won't credit an 8-anchor on vibes. 1 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
Reporting appears as a single line item — 'Reports and Timesheet reporting' — gated to the Enterprise plan, with no dashboards, no cross-project aggregation, and no report export path evidenced anywhere; the GDPR portability export (E6) is personal-data egress, not analytics. 2
The Bootstrapper
The only reporting the evidence knows — 'Reports and Timesheet reporting' — is an Enterprise feature, and Enterprise is 'Tailored pricing', so a card-paying 3- or 30-seat team gets effectively nothing: no dashboards, no report export, no API access to metrics, just GDPR portability of personal data. 2 3
The Enterprise Architect
Reports and Timesheet reporting exist but sit entirely behind the Enterprise plan, with no evidence of cross-project dashboards, budget or utilization depth, or a clean export path — the only machine-readable export evidenced is GDPR personal-data portability. For 200 seats I need more than a gated report module. 2 3
The UX Purist
"Reports and Timesheet reporting" exist but sit behind the Enterprise tier — a team on Lite or Standard stares at boards with no answers. No evidence of filters, budgets, utilization, dashboards or any export path; that parks it between "fixed status views" and "useful standard reports." 2
The Integrator
"Reports and Timesheet reporting" is literally an Enterprise-tier bullet, so answers about work exist but sit behind the top plan. No evidence of dashboards, budget/utilization, CSV export of reports, or any API access to report data — as an integrator that silence is decisive. 2
The Skeptic
The only confirmed reporting is 'Reports and Timesheet reporting' locked to Enterprise, with zero evidence of dashboards, budgets, utilization, or any export path for reports. Holding basic visibility hostage to the top tier is a classic upsell wall, not a reporting product. 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 genuinely broad catalogue — Jira, GitLab, Miro, GitHub, calendars, Zapier, Unito — with documented API and outgoing webhooks and per-plan rate limits, missing only the Slack/Teams tier and any extensibility surface. Note: every Zapier/Unito hook is another subprocessor touching your data, and the evidence names none of them. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Thirteen named native integrations including two-way Jira and Miro sync, Unito deep two-way sync with other work-management tools (a real migration path), Zapier, plus an API with published rate limits (1,000–10,000 calls/hour by plan) and outgoing webhooks. Missing Slack/Teams and any proof the API covers the whole product keeps it below the broad-catalogue anchor. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Broad native catalogue (two-way Jira, Miro and Unito sync, GitHub/GitLab, Google/Microsoft stack), Zapier, webhooks and a public API with published per-plan rate limits, plus SAML via Okta and SCIM via OneLogin — exactly what I need, missing only extensibility surfaces like plugins or AI/MCP to reach ecosystem grade. 1 2 4
The UX Purist
This is the strongest surface: documented API and outgoing webhooks with published per-plan rate limits, two-way sync with Jira, Miro and Unitto (a real competitor import path), GitHub/GitLab, calendars, storage, Zapier, SAML and SCIM. Only the missing extension surface (plugins, AI/MCP) keeps it from 10. 1 2 4
The Integrator
Outgoing webhooks, published per-plan API rate limits, Zapier, and deep two-way sync via Unito/Jira/GitHub/GitLab are exactly what I want in a stack. It falls short of the 8 anchor because native comms (Slack/Teams) is absent, no competitor import path is evidenced beyond sync, and API documentation depth and completeness are unevidenced. 1 2
The Skeptic
A genuinely broad native catalogue (Jira, GitHub, GitLab, Miro two-way, calendars, Drive/OneDrive) plus API with published rate limits, webhooks, Zapier and Unito two-way competitor sync gets close to the 8 anchor. Docked because no native Slack/Teams integration appears anywhere and API documentation quality is unevidenced. 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 14-day trial with no credit card and Google/GitHub SSO on every plan removes the classic friction; what's absent is evidence of guided setup, templates, or importers, so I can't push it to the top anchors on faith. 2 4
The Bootstrapper
A 14-day trial of any paid plan with no credit card and Google/GitHub SSO on all plans means a small team can be in and working fast, and unlimited boards with 5 collections are sane defaults. The evidence is silent on templates, guided setup, and importers, so I can't credit the minutes-to-value path a self-serve buyer would want. 2 4
The Enterprise Architect
A 14-day trial of any paid plan with no credit card, OAuth via Google/GitHub on all plans and unlimited boards from Lite make for genuinely low-friction self-serve — but nothing evidences templates, guided setup or importers, so I interpolate below the anchor. 2 4
The UX Purist
Fourteen-day trial of any paid plan with no credit card and OAuth via Google/GitHub on all plans is genuinely low-friction signup. But the evidence is silent on guided setup, templates and importers — GitHub/Jira sync exists, yet nothing evidences a newcomer being walked to first value — so I can't hand it the 8. 2 4
The Integrator
14-day trial on any paid plan with no credit card, plus SSO via Google/GitHub on all plans, removes the classic friction points. No guided setup, templates or importer that pulls existing work in are evidenced, which keeps it under the inside-an-hour anchor. 2 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 vendor answers where the data lives — MongoDB and AWS S3, EU hosting, three EU backup sites, 6-month retention, 30-day DSR response — and it's a Swedish controller, which earns it above the paperwork anchors. But the EU-only pledge is explicitly temporary ('until we have implemented customer choice', with an upcoming world-region Enterprise Plus), the payment subcontractor is unnamed, and the policy admits suppliers may process outside the EU/EEA with no published subprocessor list — documented residency, undocumented exposure. 4 3
The Bootstrapper
Favro AB in Uppsala with EU-only data, backups to three EU locations, and ISO 27001/27701 audits is real substance. But AWS is a core hosting partner (CLOUD Act reach), suppliers may process data outside the EU/EEA, no subprocessor list is published, and the EU-only residency is explicitly a placeholder — 'until we have implemented customer choice' — so the commitment is time-limited. 4 3
The Enterprise Architect
A Swedish controller with EU-resident data, EU backups and ISO 27001/27701 audits is a good start, but hosting on AWS sits within CLOUD Act reach, the privacy policy concedes processing 'in a country outside of EU/EEA or UK', no public DPA or subprocessor list is evidenced, and the EU-only commitment is explicitly temporary pending 'customer choice' — residency with caveats, not sovereign substance. 4 3
The UX Purist
Swedish entity with a Uppsala address and EU hosting with triple-redundant EU backups looks good, but the EU-only promise is explicitly provisional ("until we have implemented customer choice"), suppliers may process outside EU/EEA, and no subprocessor list or public DPA content is evidenced. Substance is there today; the commitment and the documentation are not. 4 3
The Integrator
Swedish company, EU-resident data with encrypted backups in three EU locations and a named Data Processing Addendum — substance, not paperwork, so I score above the evidence's computed 3 since hosting defaults to the EU, not the US. But AWS is a core host, the privacy policy admits suppliers "may be situated in a country outside of EU/EEA or UK", no subprocessor list is public, and the EU-only pledge is framed as temporary ("until we have implemented customer choice") — that's CLOUD Act reach left open, which is exactly what the 5 anchor describes. 4 3
The Skeptic
Swedish address, EU-region hosting, three EU backup locations — yet the EU-only commitment is self-described as temporary ('until we have implemented customer choice'), AWS hosts the cloud, suppliers 'may be situated' outside the EU/EEA, ownership is unverified, and no subprocessor list exists. Bonus suspicion: the data controller is named 'Uppsala collaborative technologies AB', not Favro AB — an entity shuffle worth explaining. 4 3
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
Support is tiered Basic/Standard/Custom with a published 24-hour weekday response only on Enterprise, and the evidence evidences no help center, no chat, no changelog for the product itself; the security page is genuinely thorough, but that answers my questions, not a stuck project manager's. 2 4
The Bootstrapper
The only concrete facts are tier names (Basic/Standard/Custom) and a 24-hour weekday response time on the top plan — which is already near 'slow turnaround' territory. Nothing in the evidence evidences a help center, chat, changelog, or any docs at all, and I score that absence as absence. 2
The Enterprise Architect
The entire evidenced support surface is tier names plus a 24-hour weekday response on Enterprise only; the evidence shows no help center, no chat channel, no changelog and no published SLA for entry plans. Absence is information — a stuck team on Standard stays stuck. 2
The UX Purist
The registry captured four pages — homepage, pricing, security, privacy — and not one help center, guide, changelog or chat channel; a tool that can't show me it teaches itself gets no benefit of the doubt. What does exist are named tiers (Basic/Standard/Custom) and a 24-hour weekday response promise at Enterprise only, which is a support surface, not a learning surface. 2 3
The Integrator
Support tiers are published (Basic/Standard/Custom) with a 24-hour weekday response promise — but only on Enterprise. The captured registry contains no help center, docs, changelog, chat channel or community at all; entry plans get an unnamed "Basic" tier, which is the thin-and-slow anchor. 2
The Skeptic
The registry contains no evidence of a help center, documentation, or changelog — the captured pages are marketing, pricing, and legal only. Support shows up solely as plan-gated tiers (Basic/Standard/Custom) whose meanings are undefined, with the one published number being 24-hour weekday response reserved for Enterprise. 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
Self-serve tiers carry public per-user numbers, but the headline is annual-only with a '-15%' figure whose monthly-billed equivalent is never stated, tax treatment is silent, and Enterprise is 'Tailored pricing' — a buyer still cannot compute the invoice from the page. 2
The Bootstrapper
Lite and Standard carry per-user prices ($5.1 / $6.8) with a stated -15% annual discount and a card-free trial, which is a decent start. But only annual-billed numbers are shown, tax treatment is unmentioned, and the Enterprise tier — which gates the reports, timesheets, and SAML a 30-seat team will eventually want — is just 'Tailored pricing', so the headline number needs qualifying. 2
The Enterprise Architect
Lite and Standard carry public per-user prices with the annual discount shown and a clean no-card trial, but the headline is annual-billing framing with an ambiguous flat monthly figure, no tax treatment stated, and the features I actually need — SSO/SAML, reports — are gated into an opaque 'Tailored pricing' Enterprise tier. The number that matters for 200 seats has no number. 2
The UX Purist
Lite and Standard are publicly priced with the annual discount shown and a no-card trial, so a small team can compute its bill. But the headline is the annual-billed number with no monthly price or tax treatment in evidence, and the opaque "Tailored pricing" tier does real work — reporting and timesheets live only there. 2
The Integrator
Self-serve tiers are fully priced with the annual discount stated, no-card trial, and an unusually public plan matrix (API calls/hour, automation actions, storage, support per tier — I value that rate-limit transparency). It stays under the 8 anchor because the headline is an annual-billed "$5.1 /user -15% $51 per month" that needs decoding, tax treatment is never stated, and Enterprise is "Tailored pricing". 2
The Skeptic
Self-serve tiers are priced and the trial needs no card, which is fair. But the headline is annual-only with crossed-out discount arithmetic ('$5.1 /user -15% $51 per month'), tax treatment is never stated, and Enterprise is 'Tailored pricing' — the invoice number still needs qualifying before you can budget. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 SE | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 4 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 11 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. The EU-only commitment is framed as temporary, holding only until the planned Enterprise Plus plan introduces customer choice of data locality.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The same page says the customer data these hosts hold stays within the EU and CityCloud is not a US provider, but Amazon AWS is US-headquartered; an unnamed subprocessor also stores credit card data for PCI compliance.
- 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.
- 15 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
- 9 data 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
- 7 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
- 5 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
- 4 subprocessors 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 hosting 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 integrations 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 product 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
- 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.favro.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.favro.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.favro.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page www.favro.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reporting — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap help.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.favro.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →