Project Management & Collaboration
Ganttic
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Ganttic OÜ · www.ganttic.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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Ganttic, 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 captures show an online Gantt chart page and little else about how several people work in one plan; I found no public information on assignments, shared timelines, dependencies, workload views, or guest access. As evidenced, this could be one planner's tool. 1 6
The Bootstrapper
Beyond the product's own category and a page about online Gantt charts, we found no public information on shared projects, assignments, dependencies, workload views, comments, or guest access. I can't confirm from anything published that a second or third teammate has a defined place in the tool. 1 6
The Enterprise Architect
The captured pages point to a Gantt-chart product but we found no public information on shared planning, assignments, dependencies, workload views, comments or guest permissions. For two hundred seats I have no evidence of where a second user sits in this tool. 1 6
The UX Purist
The vendor's product page centers on an online Gantt chart, which is at least a shared-timeline artifact, but we found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload views or guest access. A second user's defined place in the tool is not something I could verify from the captured pages. 1 6
The Integrator
The vendor's online Gantt chart page is the closest thing to collaboration evidence in the captures, and it carries no confirmed facts: we found no public information on assignments, comments, shared timelines, dependencies, workload, or guest access. With nothing showing a second user has a defined place in the work, I score just above the personal-list baseline. 1 6
The Skeptic
The only collaboration-relevant evidence is the existence of an online Gantt chart page; we found no public information on assignments, comments, guest access, dependencies, workload, or any shared team-level planning view. A product category name is positioning, not proof — I credit nothing beyond it. 1 6
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
I found no public information on reporting of any kind — no progress, time, budget or utilization views, and no exports. Nothing in the captures goes beyond the work surface itself. 1
The Bootstrapper
We found no public information on reports, dashboards, time or budget tracking, utilization, or exports on any captured page. Even a basic "where does the work stand" question can't be answered from what's published. 1 7
The Enterprise Architect
We found no public information on progress reporting, time tracking, budgets, utilization or exports of any kind. Nothing here lets me answer a steering-committee question about the work. 1 6
The UX Purist
The only question-answering surface evidenced is the Gantt view itself; we found no public information on reports, dashboards, time or budget tracking, or exports of any kind. I cannot credit what I cannot see, so this sits just above the floor. 1 6
The Integrator
The captured pages name an API and a Google Calendar integration and stop there; we found no public information on progress, time, budget, or utilization reporting, on dashboards, or on any export path, CSV included. An export path is my exit strategy, and none is visible. 1 8
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
The captured pages evidence a Ganttic API and a Google Calendar integration, which is a real start. Beyond that I found no public information on Slack or Teams, file storage, webhooks, automation platforms, or import paths, so this stays at bare basics. 8
The Bootstrapper
Two connections are evidenced: a Ganttic API page and a Google Calendar integration. We found no public information on Slack or Teams hooks, file storage, webhooks, or automation-platform support, so the connect-to-your-stack story rests on one integration plus an API whose coverage isn't shown. 8
The Enterprise Architect
A Ganttic API and a Google Calendar integration are confirmed, which is more than a closed box. We found no public information on Slack or Teams connectors, file storage, webhooks, or import paths from competing tools. 8
The UX Purist
A public API and a Google Calendar integration are confirmed by name, which is more than a closed box. We found no public information on team-chat or file-storage connectors, webhooks, automation platforms or import paths, so this lands between a marquee-only catalogue and the common set. 1 8
The Integrator
A public API and a Google Calendar integration are confirmed by name, which is more than a closed box. But we found no public information on webhooks, import or export paths, Slack, Teams, file storage, or automation-platform support, and nothing confirms how much of the product the API actually covers; two named touchpoints is a thin connector story for a modern stack. 8
The Skeptic
The captured pages name a Ganttic API and a Google Calendar integration, which clears the bar of a couple of marquee integrations plus an existing API. We found no public information on webhooks, Slack or Teams, file storage, automation platforms, or import paths from competitors, so it falls short of the common set. 8
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
The captured support surface includes a demo booking page, which points to a sales-assisted entry, and I found no public information on self-serve signup, a trial without payment details, guided setup, or templates. From this evidence a small team cannot count on starting without talking to someone. 8 2
The Bootstrapper
We found no public information on a self-serve signup, a trial, or a free tier; the captured support surface centers on a demo-booking page and an info@ email address. Time from signup to a working project for a three-person team simply isn't assessable from the published evidence. 2 8
The Enterprise Architect
The only captured onboarding-adjacent surface is a demo-booking page, and we found no public information on self-serve signup, trial terms, guided setup or templates. A sales-led start is what I expect until a page shows otherwise. 2 8
The UX Purist
Nothing captured shows a self-serve trial, a signup flow, guided setup or templates — I have no stopwatch to start. The only onboarding-adjacent artifact is a page for booking a support demo, and we found no public information on trial terms or payment requirements. 2 8
The Integrator
We found no public information on self-serve signup, a trial and its payment terms, guided setup, or templates. The support surface captured is an email address plus a demo-booking page, which reads more like a sales-led start than a path a small team can walk alone inside an hour. 2 8
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
I read the captured privacy policy and security pages first and found no public information on data residency, ownership control, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement. Provenance points to an Estonian entity, but that is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, so I cannot answer where the data lives — a rejection in my book. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
The vendor's provenance points to Ganttic OÜ in Tartu, Estonia, which counts in its favor, but we found no public information on data residency, ownership control, subprocessor exposure, or a DPA in the captured privacy, security, and terms pages. Where my project data would actually sit — and who can be compelled to hand it over — is unverifiable from what's published. 3 4 5
The Enterprise Architect
The vendor presents as Ganttic OÜ out of Tartu, Estonia, which is a European signal, but we found no public information on data residency, a data processing agreement, or subprocessor exposure to non-EU jurisdictions. I will not carry an entity name alone through procurement. 1 3 4
The UX Purist
The vendor is identified as Ganttic OÜ of Tartu, Estonia, and privacy-policy and security pages were captured, but we found no public information confirming data residency, ownership control, a data-processing agreement or subprocessor exposure on the vendor's own pages. Substance over paperwork is not verifiable from what was captured. 1 3 4
The Integrator
The provenance names Ganttic OÜ in Tartu, Estonia, but the vendor's own captured pages confirm nothing on legal jurisdiction, data residency, ownership, or subprocessors, and we found no public information on a DPA or hosting location. An unverified European registration with no evidenced compliance surface sits at the very bottom of my range. 3 4 8
The Skeptic
The vendor is listed as Ganttic OÜ of Tartu, Estonia, but we found no public information confirming legal jurisdiction, ownership control, data residency, or subprocessor exposure on the vendor's own captured pages; a privacy policy and a security page exist, yet no DPA terms or residency commitments were captured. An address in a vendor listing is assertion, not verification — every substantive attribute sits unconfirmed. 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
A support and help hub is evidenced, with an email contact and the site available in six languages including Estonian, which is a European touch. I found no public information on chat availability, response times, plan gating, or a changelog, and the existence of a hub says nothing about its depth. 7 8
The Bootstrapper
A Support and Help Hub is published, an API page exists, the site ships in six languages including Estonian, and there's a direct email contact. We found no public information on chat support, response times, or whether support quality varies by plan, so I can't confirm it's more than docs plus email. 7 8
The Enterprise Architect
A Support and Help Hub and an info@ganttic.com address are confirmed, and the site carries six languages, which is a genuine plus. We found no public information on chat support, response times, service levels per plan, or a changelog, so I cannot tell whether a stuck user gets timely help. 7 8
The UX Purist
A help hub and a general support email are confirmed, and the site is available in six languages, which is a real courtesy to non-English teams. We found no public information on the depth or freshness of the docs, chat availability, response times or a changelog, so a stuck user's path to getting unstuck rests on email alone. 7 8
The Integrator
A Support and Help Hub, an email address (info@ganttic.com), and a site running in six languages are the confirmed surface. We found no public information on chat, response times, plan-gated support tiers, a changelog, or how deep the help hub actually goes, so I can only credit docs-plus-email at the thin end. 7 8
The Skeptic
A Help Hub exists and a support email is published, with the site localized into six European languages — a real help surface rather than a bare contact form. We found no public information on chat channels, response times, plan-based gating, or a changelog, so depth and currency are unproven. 7 8
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
A pricing page was captured but no verifiable figures came out of it — no tier prices, billing periods, seat minimums, or tax treatment. From this evidence a buyer cannot determine the payable cost before talking to the vendor. 2
The Bootstrapper
A pricing page exists in the captures, but no tier names, seat prices, billing periods, tax treatment, or seat minimums were confirmed from it — I found no public information on what three seats or thirty would actually cost. As someone who pays with their own card, the number I'd pay is unverifiable here, which is disqualifying until proven otherwise. 2 8
The Enterprise Architect
A pricing page was captured but no public information on any plan price, billing period, seat minimums or tax treatment came back. I cannot determine the payable cost for my team without talking to the vendor. 2
The UX Purist
A pricing page exists, but no tier, price, billing period or tax treatment was captured from it, so a buyer cannot determine the payable cost from public information. We found no public information on seat minimums, add-ons or trial pricing either. 1 2
The Integrator
A pricing page was captured, yet no tier names, prices, billing periods, or tax treatment are confirmed from it, and we found no public information on seat minimums, add-ons, or trial terms. As captured, the pages give a buyer no number to take to a budget meeting. 2
The Skeptic
A pricing page exists in the capture but surfaced no plan names, prices, billing periods, or tax treatment — I cannot determine a single payable number from it. When a captured pricing page yields zero figures, the buyer learns the cost only by talking to someone. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited 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 16 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, Subprocessors, Legal entity. 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.
- 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
- 26 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
- 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
- 6 integrations 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 support 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 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
- 4 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
- 2 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.ganttic.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.ganttic.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.ganttic.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page www.ganttic.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.ganttic.com Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.ganttic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.ganttic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.ganttic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →