Project Management & Collaboration
Freelo
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Freelo s.r.o. · www.freelo.io
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 Freelo, 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
Projects, Kanban, Gantt timeline, task dependencies, a dashboard of tasks across projects, permissions management, multiple admins and mass user reassignment, with guest access priced in at 100-200 free guests. What the evidence never evidences is a workload or capacity view — the exact gap the 8-anchor flags — so team planning is first-class but incomplete. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Cross-project task dashboard, task dependencies, Gantt timeline, Teams, permissions management and 100–200 free guests put team-level planning in first-class shape. The one anchor-8 element with zero evidence is workload/capacity planning, which caps it. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Task discussions with mentions, dependencies, a Gantt timeline and a dashboard of tasks across projects are all evidenced, plus 100-200 free guests and admin-managed permissions with multiple admins — most of what a department needs. What I don't see is any workload or capacity view, which is exactly the gap between this and first-class team planning. 1 2
The UX Purist
Task discussions, @mentions, dependencies, a cross-project dashboard, permissions with multiple admins, and 100–200 free guests — that is most of the 8 anchor. But the evidence is silent on any workload or capacity view, so team capacity planning stays a spreadsheet job. 1 2
The Integrator
Task dependencies, a dashboard of tasks across projects, task discussions with mentions, permissions management and 100-200 free guests cover genuine team-level planning. The evidence is silent on any workload or capacity view, which is the anchor-8 gap, so I stop just short. 1 2
The Skeptic
Assignments, task discussions, @mentions, dependencies, a cross-project task dashboard, Teams with permissions management and 100-200 free guests are all confirmed — that's nearly the full anchor-8 package. But no workload/capacity view appears anywhere in the evidence, and that absence is the difference between 7 and 8. 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
Daily, weekly and monthly reports on hours and costs, project budgets, hourly rates, invoicing, CSV export and an unlimited activity log. But nothing evidences configurable reports, utilization or scheduled delivery — fixed-cadence reporting with genuine budget depth, between rubric level 5 and 8. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Daily/weekly/monthly reports on hours and costs, project budget, hourly rates, project insights, supervisor reports and CSV export clear rubric level 5's 'no budget depth' bar. But nothing evidences configurable report building, utilization or scheduled delivery, so it stops short of 8. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Daily, weekly and monthly reports on hours and costs, project budgets, hourly rates, project insights and CSV export give a controller real numbers to work with. But the report set looks fixed rather than configurable, utilization is nowhere evidenced, and nothing shows scheduled delivery or API access to metrics. 1 2
The UX Purist
Daily/weekly/monthly reports on hours and costs, project budget, hourly rates, invoicing, supervisor reports and CSV export — that beats the 5 anchor, which expects no budget depth. No custom report builder, scheduled delivery, utilization or API access to metrics is evidenced anywhere, so it stops short of 8. 1 2
The Integrator
Daily/weekly/monthly reports on hours and costs, project budgets, hourly rates and CSV export go beyond fixed status views. But nothing evidences configurable or scheduled reports, utilization, or API access to the metrics, so it cannot reach 8. 1 2
The Skeptic
Daily/weekly/monthly reports on hours and costs, project budgets, hourly rates, supervisor reports and CSV export are confirmed — budget depth lifts it past rubric level 5. What's missing is everything that makes reporting configurable: no custom builder, no utilization, no scheduled delivery, no dashboards, no evidenced API access to metrics, so 8 stays out of reach. 1 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
Two-way Google Calendar, a Gmail addon, Make, real import paths from Asana/Trello/Basecamp, and a modern MCP/Claude Skill/CLI surface. But no evidenced Slack/Teams, no webhooks, and the API is only referenced obliquely for name/email exposure to third-party tools — a thin native catalogue keeps it below the 8 anchor. 3 4 2
The Bootstrapper
The native catalogue is two integrations deep (Google Calendar 2-way, Gmail addon) plus Make, real imports from Asana/Trello/Basecamp 2, and MCP/Claude/CLI surfaces that are genuinely extensible. But the API only appears as a privacy-policy aside — no documented public API, no webhooks, no Slack/Teams or file storage anywhere in the evidence. 3 4 2
The Enterprise Architect
Two-way Google Calendar, a Gmail add-on, Make, and genuine importers from Asana, Trello and Basecamp 2, plus an MCP/Claude Skill/CLI surface — but that is a thin native catalogue with no Slack/Teams, no webhooks, and the API is only referenced in passing in the privacy policy. No SSO or SCIM anywhere on this sheet is a serious problem at 200 seats. 2 4 3
The UX Purist
Real import paths from Asana, Trello and Basecamp 2, Make for automation, and an MCP/Claude Skill/CLI surface — genuine anchor-8 and even anchor-10 material, and importers are exactly what cuts time-to-value. But the evidenced native catalogue is only Google Calendar (2-way) and a Gmail addon — no Slack, Teams or file storage — and no webhooks or API documentation appear in the evidence. 3 4 2
The Integrator
Freelo MCP, Claude Skill and CLI plus Make and real imports from Asana, Trello and Basecamp 2 are exactly the connective tissue I look for. But the native catalogue is essentially two entries (2-way Google Calendar, Gmail addon), webhooks appear nowhere in the evidence, and the API is only referenced in passing about name/email visibility — never documented or scoped here. 3 4 2
The Skeptic
The native catalogue is two items (Google Calendar 2-way, Gmail addon) plus Make, and the API surfaces only as an aside in the privacy policy — no public API docs, no webhooks, no Slack/Teams, no file storage. The competitor imports (Asana, Trello, Basecamp 2) and the MCP/Claude Skill/CLI surfaces are genuinely good, but they don't substitute for the missing common set. 3 4 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
14-day trial with no credit card, a genuinely usable free plan, competitor importers and free online training point to fast first value. The evidence proves the no-payment trial but never guided setup or signup templates, and the training/support surface reads Czech-market first — likely inside a day, the hour not confirmed. 4 1 2
The Bootstrapper
14-day trial with no credit card, a real free plan afterwards (3 projects, 3 users, 500 MB) and importers from Trello/Asana/Basecamp get a small team moving fast without talking to anyone. I stop short of 8 because guided setup is unevidenced and the free training surface is Czech-language. 4 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
A 14-day trial with no credit card, a permanent free plan behind it, competitor importers, and template management mean a team reaches value without a sales call, and the ToDoo assistant helps teach the tool. I see no explicit guided setup, but the pieces are in place. 4 1 2
The UX Purist
A 14-day trial with no credit card, a permanent free plan, importers that pull existing Asana/Trello work in, and ToDoo — an in-product AI assistant answering how-to questions — is a tool that walks newcomers to value and teaches its own use. No guided-setup flow or onboarding templates are evidenced, which is the only thing keeping this off the top. 3 4 1 2
The Integrator
A 14-day trial with no credit card, a free plan afterwards, and importers that pull existing work from three competitors get a small team to value quickly. ToDoo even answers how-to questions about using Freelo in-product, which nudges toward the tool teaching itself. 3 4 1 2
The Skeptic
14-day trial with no credit card, a permanent free plan, competitor importers to pull existing work in, and free training/consultation — that's the anchor-8 profile with almost nothing standing in the way. The one sour note is the free plan deleting everything after 3 months of inactivity, a gotcha for dormant teams, though it doesn't slow down getting started. 4 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
A Czech s.r.o. in the Czech Commercial Register, servers physically in Prague (TTC Teleport, Master DC) with daily off-site backups, EU processing stated contractually, named subprocessors, and hard deletion windows ('irreversibly deleted' one year after cancellation). I dock it below 8 because FrontApp, Loom and Microsoft sit on the subprocessor list — US processors shielded only by SCC/DPF paper — and the evidence shows no public DPA and no confirmation of ownership control. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
A Czech s.r.o. registered in the Czech Commercial Register, servers in Prague (TTC Teleport, Master DC), EU processing stated on the record, and a public subprocessor list — mostly Czech firms. It falls below 8 because FrontApp, Loom and Microsoft are US subprocessors behind DPF/SCC paperwork and no public DPA is evidenced. 3 4 2
The Enterprise Architect
Freelo Bay s.r.o. is registered in the Czech Commercial Register, the servers sit in Prague datacenters, personal data is processed within the EU, and the subprocessor list is public — this is substance, not paperwork. It stops short of an 8 because ownership is unevidenced, no public DPA is shown, and FrontApp, Inc., Loom, Inc. and Microsoft sit in the subprocessor list behind DPF/SCC paper rather than out of extraterritorial reach. 3 4
The UX Purist
A Czech s.r.o. in the Czech Commercial Register, servers physically in Prague datacenters, EU-only processing claimed and a named Czech hosting provider — substance, not paperwork. But the public subprocessor list includes FrontApp, Inc., Loom, Inc. and Microsoft behind DPF/SCC safeguards, and neither ownership control nor a public DPA is confirmed in the evidence, capping it below 8. 3 4 2
The Integrator
Czech s.r.o. in the Commercial Register, servers in Prague datacenters (TTC Teleport, Master DC), EU-only processing and a published subprocessor list with DPF/SCC safeguards — substance, not paperwork. It misses 8 because that list includes FrontApp, Loom and Microsoft (US exposure beyond a mere EU-region hyperscaler) and ownership control is unconfirmed on the evidence. 3 4
The Skeptic
A Czech s.r.o. in the Czech Commercial Register running its own servers in Prague datacenters via a Czech hosting provider, with contractual EU-only processing and a published subprocessor list — substance, not paperwork. But ownership is unverified, no public DPA is evidenced, there's no DPO, and FrontApp, Inc., Loom, Inc. and Microsoft sit in the processing chain, so rubric level 8's 'documented, limited exposure' holds only with those caveats. 3 4 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
Phone and email support, free weekday support, free online consultations and free training are real human channels, and ToDoo answers usage questions. But the evidence evidences no help center, no changelog and no published SLAs — I cannot confirm a stuck user gets unstuck from documentation, which caps it. 3 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Not one entry in this sheet evidences a help center, docs or knowledge base — the learning surface is an AI assistant (ToDoo), free consultations and Czech-language training. Weekday phone and email support free of charge keeps it above 'contact form' territory, but the missing docs and Czech-only support language are real gaps. 3 4 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Free phone and email support every weekday, free online consultations and training, and an in-product AI assistant answering usage questions are genuinely decent touches. But there is no evidence of a searchable help center, no SLAs, no changelog, and the documented support language is Czech only — for a 200-seat deployment that is thin, and I score the silence on docs as absence. 2 4 3
The UX Purist
Phone and email support every weekday free of charge, free online training and consultations, and ToDoo answering usage questions in-product — good channels for a product this size. But there is zero evidence of a searchable help center, onboarding guides or a changelog, and documentation is the surface a stuck user hits first. 3 4 1 2
The Integrator
Free weekday phone support, free consultations and the ToDoo AI assistant are unusually human channels available to all plans. But the evidence evidences no help center, docs, or changelog at all — and as a docs-first buyer I weigh that silence heavily, with the confirmed support language being Czech on an English-facing site. 3 1 2
The Skeptic
Phone and email support, free Czech-language weekday support, a Crisp web chat, free training and the ToDoo AI assistant are decent channels. But the evidence contains zero evidence of a help center, guides, or a changelog — I cannot confirm documentation exists at all, and per the anchors that silence caps this below 5. 3 4 1 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
Every self-serve tier carries a per-user price with user limits, guests, storage and a stated 14% annual discount. But Business and Premium headline annual-only numbers, tax treatment is never stated, and Enterprise is 'Contact us' — the headline still needs qualifying, which is anchor-5 territory nudged up by the fully specified Free and Lite tiers. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Lite carries both numbers (6,45 € annual / 10,00 € monthly), the 14% annual discount is quantified and the free tier is fully specified, so at 3 seats I can compute my invoice. But Premium and Business only show annual headlines, tax treatment appears nowhere, and Premium's 5-or-more-users floor — stated, not hidden — still locks my small team out of it. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Every self-serve tier carries a public per-user price, Lite shows both monthly and annual (10.00 € / 6.45 €), the 14% annual discount, per-tier user minimums and guest inclusions are stated, and only genuinely custom Enterprise is contact-us. Tax treatment is never mentioned and the Premium/Business headlines are annual-only, so it falls just short of fully clean. 2
The UX Purist
Three self-serve tiers are priced on the page, the 14% annual discount and Lite's monthly €10 are stated, and even a 35% first-year promo code is public. But Premium and Business show annual-only headlines with no monthly price, tax treatment is nowhere stated, and Enterprise is 'contact us' — the headline number still needs qualifying. 2 1 2
The Integrator
Three self-serve tiers are publicly priced with the 14% annual discount, storage tiers, guest counts and seat minimums stated on the page — and Lite shows both monthly and annual figures. Premium and Business are annual-only headlines, tax treatment is never mentioned, and enterprise is contact-us, which keeps it below 8. 1 2
The Skeptic
Three self-serve tiers with per-user prices, storage, guest counts, user minimums and an explicit 14% annual discount are on the page, but Business and Premium are quoted annual-only with no monthly figure, tax treatment is never stated, and Enterprise is 'contact us'. That's the anchor-5 pattern: the headline number needs qualifying before it becomes an invoice number. 4 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 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 20 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement covers Freelo's own hosting only and does not say where subprocessors such as support, emailing and AI providers process customer data.
- 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.
- 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
- 2 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
- 1 support 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.freelo.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.freelo.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.freelo.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page www.freelo.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.freelo.io Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →