Project Management & Collaboration
Forecast
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 Forecast ApS · www.forecast.app
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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Forecast, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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
The only capability evidence is marketing copy claiming resourcing, capacity planning and financial forecasting, which implies team-level planning beyond per-person lists, but the evidence is silent on assignments, comments, dependencies, guest access and any permissions model. For a PSA-category product that silence is telling, so I land between the 3 and 5 anchors. 1 3
The Bootstrapper
"Resourcing" and "capacity planning" imply people get allocated to something, but the evidence contains no evidence of shared projects, assignments, comments, dependencies, workload views or guest access. I can't credit team planning I can't see, so this scores between rubric level 0 and 3. 1 3
The Enterprise Architect
Resourcing and capacity planning tell me planning is team-level rather than per-person, which is the one real collaboration signal here — but assignments, comments, dependencies and guest/client permissions are nowhere evidenced, so I cannot credit a PSA-grade collaboration model. 1 3
The UX Purist
The only collaboration evidence is marketing copy about 'predictive AI' for resourcing and capacity planning; nothing confirms assignments, shared timelines, comments, dependencies, workload views, guest access or permissions. A team's actual working surface is entirely unproven, so I can't credit it past a shared-task minimum. 1 3
The Integrator
The vendor claims AI 'resourcing, capacity planning, and financial forecasting', which is team-level planning vocabulary, but the evidence evidences nothing structural: no assignments, comments, dependencies, guest access or shared timelines. I'm scoring the claims lightly since the mechanics are entirely unevidenced. 1 3
The Skeptic
The only collaboration evidence in the entire registry is marketing copy about 'predictive AI — resourcing, capacity planning, and financial forecasting'; nothing confirms assignments, comments, dependencies, workload views or guest access actually exist. A PSA is by definition a team tool, so zero would be dishonest — but a tagline is not a feature list. 1 3
Reporting
panel disagrees
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
"Financial forecasting" and the 3-7% revenue-leakage claim gesture at cross-project financial visibility, but nothing evidences an actual reporting surface, filters, dashboards or report export. The data-ownership clause in E5 promises extractability of data for retention, which is a portability right, not reporting. 1 2 4
The Bootstrapper
"Financial forecasting" is a marketing claim, not an evidenced report surface — no dashboards, filters, time or budget reports appear anywhere, and the only export fact is a data-ownership export clause, which is an exit path, not reporting. The outcome stats on the pricing page are sales copy about customers, not the tool's reporting. 1 2 4
The Enterprise Architect
'Financial forecasting' and the claim that customers recover 3–7% of revenue leakage only make sense with real financial reporting, but no report builder, utilization view, export format or scheduled delivery is evidenced; the generic data-export commitment is an exit path, not reporting. 1 2 4
The UX Purist
Financial forecasting is claimed as an AI capability and subscribers can export their data, but there is no evidence of progress, time, budget or utilization reports, filters, dashboards, or a real export format. The '3–7% revenue leakage' figure is a marketing outcome, not a report a user can run. 1 2 4
The Integrator
'Financial forecasting' is the only reporting-adjacent capability in evidence; the 3–7% revenue recovery and 30–35% admin reduction are marketing outcomes, not a reporting surface. Nothing on dashboards, filters or — my sticking point — exporting the answer. 1 2
The Skeptic
No report, dashboard or export-the-answer capability is evidenced anywhere; the closest is a marketing claim of AI 'financial forecasting' and unverifiable outcome stats ('recover 3–7% of revenue leakage'). The only export fact is a data-ownership export clause — that's an exit door, not analytics. 1 2 4
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
Exactly one connector is evidenced: Google Workspace delegated sign-in via E5. No public API, no webhooks, no calendar/Slack/file-storage hooks, no import paths appear anywhere in the evidence — for an exit-conscious buyer that closed-box posture matters. 4
The Bootstrapper
The entire evidenced surface is Google Workspace delegated sign-in plus a data-export promise — no API, no webhooks, no Slack/calendar/storage catalogue, no import paths from competitors. One auth hook doesn't make a connected product; this is barely above a closed box. 4
The Enterprise Architect
One hook in evidence: Google Workspace delegated sign-in. No SAML/OIDC for our IdP, no SCIM, no API, no webhooks, no import path from a competitor — at 200 seats that is a near-closed box with a single door. 4
The UX Purist
Exactly one hook is in evidence: Google Workspace delegated sign-in — and that's authentication, not a working integration. No API, no webhooks, no calendar/comms connections, no import paths from anywhere; as far as this sheet is concerned, it's a closed box with an SSO keyhole. 4
The Integrator
This is where the evidence goes completely dark: no API, no webhooks, no native integration catalogue, no import path — the only connection evidence is Google Workspace delegated SSO. 'Exportable' data is a data-ownership statement, not an exit path; from my chair this is a closed box with a fancy login. 4
The Skeptic
Exactly one connection is evidenced — Google Workspace delegated sign-in — and that's authentication, not an integration. No API, webhooks, Slack/Teams, calendar or import paths appear anywhere in the registry, so as far as this sheet is concerned they do not exist. 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 public /pricing page (E2) weakly implies a self-serve intent, but the evidence is silent on trial terms, payment-detail requirements, templates and guided setup. Missing evidence is information: I cannot confirm a newcomer reaches a working project without sales involvement. 2
The Bootstrapper
The homepage and pricing page together yielded no signup path, no trial terms, no templates, no guided setup — nothing self-serve is confirmable. A PSA sold on recovered revenue leakage and now folded into the Accelo brand reads as sales-led, and I won't credit an onboarding experience the evidence can't show. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
The evidence is entirely silent on signup flow, trial terms, templates and importers — I cannot verify that any self-serve path exists, and a pricing-page capture that surfaced no numbers smells sales-led. 1 2
The UX Purist
Nothing here evidences a self-serve path: no signup flow, trial terms, templates, guided setup or importers anywhere, and the pricing page capture carries no getting-started detail. Worse, the product is mid-migration — 'Forecast.app has moved to Accelo.com' — so a newcomer lands on a brand they didn't buy, which is friction before step one. 2 3
The Integrator
The evidence is silent on signup, trial terms, templates and guided setup — none of it evidenced anywhere. The only friction signal is the brand migration ('Forecast.app has moved to Accelo.com'), which at minimum means a new team meets a redirect instead of a first project. 3
The Skeptic
Nothing in the evidence describes a signup path, trial terms, templates or guided setup — the absence is the finding. A public pricing page exists, which hints self-serve might be possible, but every actual friction point (payment details, defaults, initial configuration) is completely undocumented. 1 2
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 Copenhagen origin is gone: the copyright and entity read "Accelo, Inc." with a Denver address, so ownership sits outside Europe, and the EU-only residency claim (AWS Ireland primary, Germany backup) is website copy the evidence explicitly flags as non-contractual — it also covers only the Forecast PSA SKU, not the wider Accelo platform with US/Australia regions. There is no subprocessor list beyond "AWS", data-subject rights are exercised only "through your account administrator", and legal-entity jurisdiction is unconfirmed; paperwork over substance. 4 3
The Bootstrapper
The entity I'd actually contract with is Accelo, Inc., a US company with a Denver address, and the wider platform runs US/Australia regions. EU-only residency is claimed for Forecast PSA on AWS Ireland/Germany but as website copy, not contract terms, and the subprocessor list is unconfirmed — compliance paperwork over substance. 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
Forecast ApS has been absorbed into Accelo, Inc., a US entity with a Denver address; EU-only hosting for Forecast PSA is AWS Ireland/Germany asserted in website copy, not contracted, with no subprocessor list and the SOC 2 Type 2 report locked behind an MNDA — compliance paperwork over substance. 3 4
The UX Purist
EU-only hosting for the Forecast PSA product (Ireland primary, Germany backup) and a public DPA are real, but the legal entity is Accelo, Inc. with a Denver address, the wider Accelo stack hosts in the US and Australia, and the EU commitment is website copy rather than contract terms — compliance paperwork over substance. 2 3 4
The Integrator
Forecast PSA does run EU-only by default — AWS Ireland primary, Germany backup — and a public DPA link exists. But the legal entity is Accelo, Inc., a US company with a Denver address, the broader Accelo platform offers US/Australia regions, and the EU commitment is website copy rather than contract terms — substance present, control outside Europe. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
The Danish vendor is gone: the copyright holder is Accelo, Inc. with a Denver address, and everything has 'moved to Accelo.com'. The 'EU-only' residency is website copy for the Forecast product only — not contract terms — while the broader Accelo platform hosts in the US and Australia on AWS; DPA and GDPR language exist, but non-European ownership plus unverified subprocessors is paperwork over substance. 2 3 4
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
Two help centers (Accelo and Forecast) plus a community forum are evidenced, which clears the "docs exist" bar, but nothing shows support channels per plan, response times, chat availability or SLAs. A privacy@accelo.com contact is not a stuck-user support path. 1 3
The Bootstrapper
A real docs surface exists — Accelo Help Center, Community Forum and a Forecast Help Center — which clears rubric level 3. But no support channel per plan, no response times and no SLAs are evidenced, so I can't confirm a stuck user on an entry plan gets unstuck. 1 2 3
The Enterprise Architect
There is a real docs surface — Accelo Help Center, community forum and the legacy Forecast Help Center — but nothing evidences support channels per plan, response times or SLAs, so I cannot tell whether a stuck team actually gets unstuck. 1 2 3
The UX Purist
Help center and community forum surfaces exist for both Accelo and Forecast, which is more than a contact form. But nothing shows response times, plan gating, doc depth or a changelog, and running two parallel help centers mid-rebrand is a fragmentation signal — a stuck user doesn't know which door to knock on. 1 2 3
The Integrator
Two help centers (Accelo and Forecast) plus a community forum are a real learning surface in the footer evidence. But nothing evidences support channels per plan, response times, a changelog or an academy — a privacy email address is not support. 1 2 3 4
The Skeptic
Help centers and a community forum exist for both brands, which clears 'docs exist' — but nothing evidences chat, response times, SLAs or a living changelog, and documentation split between a 'Forecast Help Center' and an 'Accelo Help Center' mid-rebrand is a staleness red flag. A privacy@ email is a compliance channel, not support. 1 2 3 4
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
A pricing page exists, yet the captured facts from it contain marketing outcome statistics and policy links but not a single tier, price, billing period or tax treatment. If the evidence cannot evidence a number, the buyer cannot determine one before a conversation. 2
The Bootstrapper
A pricing page exists, yet the capture confirmed not one tier, price, seat minimum, billing period or tax treatment — the real cost of three seats is undeterminable from public evidence. For a buyer like me that's near-total opacity; I assume numbers live behind a sales conversation. 2
The Enterprise Architect
A pricing page was captured, yet not a single tier, price, seat minimum, billing period or tax treatment appears in the confirmed facts; I cannot build a 200-seat cost model from this sheet. 2
The UX Purist
A pricing page exists, but its captured content is outcome marketing ('recover 3–7% of revenue leakage, reduce admin overhead 30–35%') — no tier, price, billing period or tax treatment anywhere. A buyer reading everything in this sheet cannot determine a single payable number, which is a contact-sales experience with a nicer URL. 2
The Integrator
A pricing page was captured and the only confirmed facts from it are outcome statistics — no tiers, prices, seat minimums, billing periods or trial terms appear anywhere in the evidence. As this sheet stands, a buyer cannot determine the payable cost from public pages. 2
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page contains ROI marketing — 'recover 3–7% of revenue leakage and reduce admin overhead by 30–35%' — and not a single price, tier, billing period or tax statement. A page named /pricing with no prices on it is a contact-sales funnel wearing a costume. 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 US ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 2 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 — Legal entity. No imprint or company register is published; this is a footer office address block (which also lists United Kingdom and Australia offices) tied to the copyright holder 'Accelo, Inc.', so the US incorporation is inferred from the primary address rather than explicitly stated.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The same security page shows the broader Accelo platform also offers United States (us-west-2) and Australia (ap-southeast-2) primary regions, and hosting rests entirely on AWS, a US-headquartered provider.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. AWS runs the product only in EU regions (Ireland primary, Germany backup), but AWS is a US-headquartered parent subject to the US CLOUD Act.
- 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 13 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
- 6 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
- 6 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 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 data 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
- 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
Sources (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.forecast.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.forecast.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.forecast.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page www.forecast.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.accelo.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →