Project Management & Collaboration
GanttPRO
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by GanttPRO · ganttpro.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
GanttPRO at a glance
- Vendor
- GanttPRO
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates GanttPRO 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. GanttPRO is a project management and collaboration tool whose scores are strongest on getting started and weakest on sovereignty. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
GanttPRO is a project management and collaboration tool whose scores are strongest on getting started and weakest on sovereignty. Onboarding effort scores 6 to 7, crediting a free 14-day trial to premium features with no credit card required plus free industry Gantt chart templates. Support documentation sits at 4 to 5 on a help center, video tutorials, a community hub, and a support email. Collaboration depth scores 4 to 6: the Portfolio view and a team workload check put team-level planning on the page, though we found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, or guest and client permissions. Reporting scores 3 to 4 and integrations a flat 3 — progress is answered on screen through Gantt, Kanban, List and Portfolio views, and the only connections on record are Jira and an online MPP viewer, with no public information on time or budget reports, exports, an API, or webhooks. Sovereignty scores 1 to 2, with no sovereignty attributes on record. The judges' scores cluster tightly, and no significant disagreement was recorded between them.
Speaks for it
- a free 14-day trial to premium features with no credit card required and free industry Gantt chart templates
- a Portfolio view and a team workload check that put team-level planning on the page beyond per-person task lists
- a help center, video tutorials, a community hub and a support email that form a real learning surface
- a Jira integration and an online MPP viewer that give a genuine import path from Microsoft Project files
Held against it
- sovereignty scores 1 to 2, with no public information on data residency, a data processing agreement, or subprocessors
- we found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, or guest and client permissions
- we found no public information on time, budget or utilization reporting, dashboards, or any export path
- we found no public information on a public API, webhooks, calendar or chat connections, or automation platforms
- we found no public information on tier prices, billing periods, or seat minimums
Best for
- You want a self-serve start — a 14-day premium trial without a credit card, with industry templates for the first project
- You plan across several projects and want Portfolio and team workload views for progress and capacity
- You come from Microsoft Project and want an online MPP viewer for reading existing files
- You are comfortable with self-serve help — help center, videos, community hub, email — as the visible support surface
Avoid if
- You must verify data residency, a data processing agreement, or subprocessors before signing
- You need answers to leave the tool — time, budget or utilization reports, dashboards, or exports
- Your stack depends on a documented API, webhooks, or connections beyond Jira and Microsoft Project files
- You are deploying at scale and need the permission model, guest access, or dependencies verified up front
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Collaboration depth | 3 of 5 |
| Reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations | 1.5 of 5 |
| Onboarding effort | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Support & documentation | 2.5 of 5 |
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
Portfolio and workload views evidence cross-project visibility and capacity planning, which is genuine team-level territory. We found no public information on dependencies, comments, or guest and client access, so the permission and client-involvement ends of the scale rest on nothing evidenced. 1
The Bootstrapper
The captured page names real team-level planning surfaces — a workload view that checks who in the company has too many tasks, and a Portfolio view for tracking multiple projects. I found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, or guest and client access, so I cannot credit the fuller model. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The vendor's page shows a Portfolio view for tracking multiple projects and a team workload view, so team-level planning is real. We found no public information on dependencies, guest or client access, or the permission model — the parts a two-hundred-seat deployment turns on — and assignment and comment behavior is likewise not shown. 1
The UX Purist
Team-level planning is visible on the page — a workload view for seeing who is overloaded and a Portfolio view for tracking multiple projects — with Gantt, Kanban and List views as the working surface. We found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, or guest and client permissions, so the shared-planning story stops short of first-class. 1
The Integrator
A team workload view and a Portfolio view for tracking multiple projects are evidenced, which puts team-level planning on the page beyond per-person task lists. We found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, or guest and client permissions, so the upper tier of shared work is unverifiable on this evidence. 1
The Skeptic
Workload and Portfolio views are evidenced, so team-level planning is more than a promise. But we found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies, guest access, or permissions, and without those the shared-work foundation rests on inference rather than anything a buyer can check. 1
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
The Portfolio view and the workload check give cross-project visibility into progress and capacity. We found no public information on time or budget reporting, dashboards, customization, or any export path, so the answers cannot be taken out of the tool on this evidence. 1
The Bootstrapper
What is on record are status surfaces — Gantt chart, Kanban board, List view, Portfolio view — with the Portfolio view the only thing that aggregates across projects. I found no public information on progress, time or budget reporting, filters, or any export path. 1
The Enterprise Architect
A Portfolio view aggregates progress across projects and the workload view reads team load, but we found no public information on time, budget or utilization reporting, custom reports, or any export path. Nothing here produces an answer I can take out of the tool. 1
The UX Purist
Progress questions get answered visually through the Gantt, Kanban, List and Portfolio views, and the workload view exposes team capacity. We found no public information on time, budget or utilization reports, dashboards, or any export path, which caps this between fixed status views and real reporting. 1
The Integrator
The Portfolio and workload views can answer some questions across projects visually, but we found no public information on time, budget or utilization reporting, dashboards, or any export path. As far as the captured page shows, the answer to a question about the work stays on screen. 1
The Skeptic
The only evidence the tool answers questions about work is visual: portfolio tracking and a workload check. We found no public information on reports, exports, time tracking, budgets, or utilization, so any real answer never leaves the screen. 1
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 Jira integration and an online MPP viewer are evidenced — one marquee connection plus an import path from Microsoft Project files. We found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, calendar or messaging hooks, or automation-platform coverage. 1
The Bootstrapper
Jira integration and an online MPP viewer, which is a genuine path in from Microsoft Project, are named on the page. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, automation platforms, or the calendar, chat and storage basics, so this reads as a couple of marquee items rather than a catalogue. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The page names a Jira integration and an online viewer for Microsoft Project files, and we found no public information on a public API, webhooks, Slack or Teams, calendar hooks, or automation platforms. A tool I cannot automate or exit through an API is a liability at my seat count. 1
The UX Purist
A Jira integration and an online MPP viewer for reading Microsoft Project files are the only connections on record — a genuine import path, but one marquee name. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, calendar or chat hooks, or the rest of the catalogue. 1
The Integrator
One native integration (Jira) and an online MPP viewer, which reads as a partial import path from Microsoft Project, are all that is evidenced. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, calendar or chat hooks, automation-platform coverage, or bulk export, so I cannot judge how this tool would sit in a stack. 1
The Skeptic
Jira integration and an online MPP viewer are the entire connection story on the captured page — two marquee items. We found no public information on a public API, webhooks, calendar or chat hooks, automation platforms, or export paths, which caps this at the low end. 1
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 to premium features with no credit card required, plus free industry templates for starting a first project, evidence a low-friction self-serve path. We found no public information on guided setup or importers for existing work, so it sits between a smooth first day and a first hour. 1
The Bootstrapper
A 14-day trial with no credit card required and free Gantt chart templates by industry are exactly the friction-reducers I look for in a self-serve path. I found no public information on guided setup, sensible defaults, or importers pulling existing work in, so I cannot confirm first-project speed beyond what the trial and templates imply. 1
The Enterprise Architect
A 14-day premium trial with no credit card required and free industry Gantt templates point to a fast self-serve start. We found no public information on guided setup or how quickly a team reaches a working project, so I stop short of the higher marks. 1
The UX Purist
The path to first value is short and unguarded: a free 14-day premium trial with no credit card, and industry templates so the first project starts populated rather than as an empty screen. We found no public information on guided setup or importers beyond the MPP viewer, which keeps it shy of the top marks for hour-to-value. 1
The Integrator
A 14-day trial to premium features with no credit card required, together with free industry templates, gives a low-friction self-serve start above the day-one tier. We found no public information on guided setup or time to a first working project, and the only importer in view is the MPP viewer. 1
The Skeptic
A free 14-day trial to premium features with no credit card required, industry templates, and a stated two-step start — sign up and create a project or use a template — clear the usual signup friction. We found no public information on guided setup, so how quickly a team reaches a working project stays unproven rather than shown. 1
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
We found no public information on data residency, hosting jurisdiction, the legal entity behind the product, a data processing agreement, or any subprocessor exposure. A vendor that cannot answer where the data lives is, from this seat, treated as the worst case short of confirmed non-European hosting. 1
The Bootstrapper
Nothing is on record: the captured page says nothing about where the company or its data sits, a DPA, data residency, or subprocessors. For a buyer who needs jurisdiction and hosting verified before signing, fully unverifiable sits just above the worst case. 1
The Enterprise Architect
We found no public information on where the company or the data sit — no legal domicile or ownership, no data residency, no data processing agreement, no subprocessor list. I reject what I cannot verify in procurement, and none of this would survive the review. 1
The UX Purist
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on the vendor's legal domicile, ownership control, data residency, DPA, or subprocessors. A buyer can verify nothing about where the company and the data sit from the captured page. 1
The Integrator
We found no public information on the vendor's legal entity, ownership, data residency, a data processing agreement, or subprocessors anywhere on the captured page. Nothing on record lets a buyer verify European control or EU-resident data, so sovereignty is asserted nowhere and checkable nowhere. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty information is on record: we found no public information on the legal entity, ownership, data residency, a data processing agreement, or subprocessors. In sovereignty, what cannot be verified cannot be bought with confidence, and this page verifies nothing. 1
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 help center, video tutorials, a community hub, and a support email address are all evidenced. We found no public information on chat availability, response times by plan, or a changelog, so the learning surface reads as solid but the service level is unverified. 1
The Bootstrapper
A help center, video tutorials, a community hub and a published support email make a real learning surface with an email path on record. I found no public information on chat support, response times by plan, or a changelog, so it reads as solid and standard rather than deep. 1
The Enterprise Architect
A help center, video tutorials, a community hub and a support address give a stuck user somewhere to go. We found no public information on chat availability, response times, service levels, or how support varies by plan, so the faster lanes are unverified. 1
The UX Purist
A help center, video tutorials and a community hub give a stuck user several self-serve lanes, with a support email behind them — a real learning surface. We found no public information on response times, chat availability, how support scales by plan, or a changelog. 1
The Integrator
A help center, video tutorials, a community hub, and a support email address are all evidenced, which clears the working core of this criterion. We found no public information on chat support, response times or SLAs, or a visible changelog. 1
The Skeptic
A help center, video tutorials, a community hub, and a support email are named on the page — a real learning surface on paper. We found no public information on doc depth or currency, response times, chat availability, plan gating, or a changelog, so a stuck user getting unstuck is asserted rather than demonstrated. 1
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
No price, tier, billing period, or tax treatment appears anywhere in the captured material, only a free trial of premium features. We found no public information on what any paid tier costs, so a buyer cannot determine the payable cost before talking to the vendor. 1
The Bootstrapper
I found no public information on tier prices, seat minimums, billing-period differences, or tax treatment — the captured page offers a free trial but not one payable number. As someone paying with their own card, I cannot price a 3-seat or a 30-seat team from what is here, and that alone stops the purchase. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The page offers a free 14-day trial and no figures: we found no public pricing, no tiers, no per-seat numbers, no billing-period or tax treatment. I cannot budget two hundred seats from a trial button. 1
The UX Purist
The only cost information on record is the trial itself — "Get free 14-day trial to premium features. No credit card required" — which tells a buyer the entry path is free but nothing more. We found no public information on tier prices, billing periods, seat minimums, or tax treatment, so the payable number for a team cannot be read before signup. 1
The Integrator
No tier price, billing period, or tax treatment appears on the captured page; the only pricing-adjacent signal is a free 14-day trial to unspecified premium features. A buyer cannot determine any payable number before talking to the vendor. 1
The Skeptic
The only money statement captured is 'Get free 14-day trial to premium features. No credit card required'; we found no public information on tier prices, billing periods, seat minimums, or tax treatment. A buyer cannot determine the payable cost before talking to the vendor. 1
Questions about GanttPRO
Is GanttPRO European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where GanttPRO is based.
Where does GanttPRO store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does GanttPRO have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to GanttPRO?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates awork (4/5), Kantree (4/5) and Teamwork.com (4/5) highest among the other 60 Project Management & Collaboration products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is awork (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: GanttPRO alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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
- 7 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
- 3 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
- 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 (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page ganttpro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →