Project Management & Collaboration
InLoox
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by InLoox GmbH · www.inloox.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 InLoox, 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
Dependencies, critical path, workload display and a Gantt plan are evidenced, and Enterprise adds multi-project dashboards, departments with permissions and role groups — nearly everything rubric level 8 asks for. The gaps are social (only a vague 'associated communication', no evidenced comments or mentions), cross-project views gated to the Enterprise tier, and guest access being read-only only. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Gantt with dependencies and critical path, task assignment, workload display, department/role permissions and unlimited free read-only guest access are all evidenced, which is real team planning. But the cross-project dashboards, customizable project roles and PPM that would make planning first-class sit in Enterprise/Enterprise Plus, guest access is read-only only, and there's no evidence of comments or mentions beyond a vague 'associated communication' phrase. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Gantt with dependencies and critical path, workload display, multi-project dashboards, departments with departmental permissions and up to ten customizable project roles — that is first-class team-level planning, not per-person lists. Client involvement is capped at unlimited free read-only access, and the two-freelancer end is blocked by a 5-user minimum, so it stops short of the full-span anchor. 1 2
The UX Purist
Dependencies, task assignments and workload display are evidenced in the base product, plus multi-project dashboards, departmental permissions and PPM — but the deep planning is rationed across Enterprise and Enterprise Plus tiers, and the only guest access evidenced is read-only. That is anchor-8 capability delivered with tier-gated friction and no writable client involvement. 1 2
The Integrator
Genuine team-level planning: Gantt with dependencies, milestones and critical path, task assignment with workload display, multi-project dashboards, departmental permissions and up to 10 customizable project roles. The only gap to the top anchor is external access — guests get unlimited read-only only, never a working seat. 1 2
The Skeptic
The marketing copy is backed by real structure: task assignments, workload display, Gantt dependencies and critical path are stated, and departments, role-based groups and multi-project dashboards appear in the tier feature lists. Unlimited free read-only access is a genuine stakeholder path, but it's read-only only and portfolio views are gated to Enterprise Plus — so 8, not the full span. 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
Real-time KPI evaluation across the entire project portfolio, automatically generated status reports, multi-project dashboards and working-time capture via Outlook appointments are evidenced, which goes beyond per-project status views. But the evidence is completely silent on any export path, custom report building or budget/utilization depth, and missing evidence is information. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Real-time portfolio KPIs, auto-generated status reports, multi-project dashboards and Outlook-based working-time recording are real capabilities. However, nothing in the evidence evidences exports of any kind, a custom report builder, or scheduled delivery, and the portfolio-level reporting is gated to the Enterprise/Enterprise Plus tiers I'd need a quote to buy. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Real-time KPI evaluation across the entire project portfolio with auto-generated status reports, plus time recording via Outlook appointments and workload views — that aggregates across projects, which clears the mid anchor. But there is no evidence of export formats, a report builder, or budget/utilization depth beyond a passing mention of 'budgets', and portfolio dashboards only appear from Enterprise upward. 1 2
The UX Purist
Real-time portfolio dashboards and auto-generated status reports are concrete claims, and time recording exists via Outlook appointments, so this clears fixed per-project views. But nothing evidences a configurable report builder, budget or utilization depth, or a single export path — the missing half is exactly what separates 5 from 8. 1 2
The Integrator
Cross-project is real: portfolio-wide key figures evaluated in real time, auto-generated status reports, multi-project dashboards and time captured via Outlook appointments. But the evidence is silent on exports, budgets and utilization depth, and I can't verify you can get the numbers out. 1 2
The Skeptic
Real-time portfolio KPI dashboards, auto-generated status reports, effort estimation and working-time capture via Outlook are all claimed, and multi-project dashboards exist at Enterprise. But there is not one word about exports — no CSV, no API-to-reporting evidence — and no report builder or scheduling; a criterion that asks 'can you export the answer' cannot score above 7 on silence. 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
Deep Microsoft embedding — Outlook, Teams, M365, mobile clients — plus an API with tiered page sizes up to 1000 records/page on Enterprise Plus. The catalogue is one ecosystem: no webhooks, no automation platforms, no Slack, no competitor import paths, and file storage connections are gated to the Self-Hosted edition. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
The integration story is deep Microsoft — Outlook, Teams, M365, mobile clients — and a real API is implied by per-tier page-size limits. But no Slack, webhooks, automation platforms, competitor import paths, or file-storage connectors (those only in Self-Hosted) appear anywhere in the evidence, so this is a one-ecosystem tool. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Deep, native Microsoft stack — Outlook, Teams, M365, mobile clients, Outlook calendar sync — and an API exists (Enterprise Plus gates bigger page sizes behind a paywall), plus a third-party backup interface I respect for exit. No webhooks, no automation platforms, no competitor importers, and critically no SSO/SCIM or identity integration anywhere in the evidence, so it's a Microsoft-only corridor rather than an ecosystem. 1 2
The UX Purist
The Microsoft coupling is genuine — Outlook, Teams, Microsoft 365 and mobile clients — and an API exists (implied by tiered page sizes), so this is more than marquee-only. But the catalogue is one vendor deep: no Slack, webhooks, automation platforms or competitor importers are evidenced anywhere, and file storage connections only arrive at Self-Hosted. 1 2
The Integrator
Deep but narrow: a dedicated Outlook client, Teams client, M365 and calendar integration is unusual depth — into exactly one vendor's ecosystem. The API is evidenced only as '1000 data sets/page' on Enterprise Plus; no API documentation, webhooks, automation platforms or import paths appear, and the backup interface is the sole exit-adjacent feature. 1 2
The Skeptic
This is a Microsoft shop: runs inside Outlook, Teams client, M365 integration, Outlook calendar workload display — deep, but the catalogue ends there. The API is only ever mentioned as a tier perk ('1000 data sets/page' on Enterprise Plus), which tells me it exists and is used as an upsell lever; no webhooks, no automation platforms, no competitor import paths are evidenced anywhere. 1 2
Onboarding effort
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Time and friction from signup to first real value for a small team, without paid services.
0 — No self-serve path — onboarding starts with a sales call and an implementation project.
3 — Self-serve exists but the first project requires configuration a newcomer cannot judge yet (workflows, custom fields, permissions) before anything works.
5 — A team gets a first project running within a day; trial requires payment details or key steps live behind docs.
8 — Signup to working project inside an hour: guided setup, sensible defaults, templates, trial without payment details.
10 — Minutes to value even for non-tool-people, importers pull existing work in, and the tool teaches its own advanced features as the team grows into them.
The Data Protection Officer
The one confirmed positive is a clean 14-day trial with no credit card and automatic expiry. Nothing evidences guided setup, templates or importers, and every edition's price sits behind 'upon request' with 5-20 user minimums, so the purchase path itself starts with a quote conversation. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
A 14-day trial with no credit card and automatic end is genuinely self-serve, and unlimited free read-only access helps stakeholders. But the evidence shows no guided setup, templates, or importers, the separate 'InLoox Trainings' offering hints the learning curve is handled by training rather than the product, and everything presumes you already live in Outlook/M365. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
A 14-day trial with no credit card is genuinely self-serve and an Outlook shop likely has a first project same-day. But the evidence evidences no templates, guided setup or importers, and every plan — including the 5-user entry tier — is 'price upon request', so converting the trial into a purchase starts with a sales conversation. 1 2
The UX Purist
A 14-day trial with no credit card is the right instinct, but the evidence shows no guided setup, no templates and no importer to pull existing work in. Cheapest plan floors at five users with a quote-only price, so day-one value is plausible and hour-one value is unevidenced. 1 2
The Integrator
A 14-day trial with no credit card and clients ready for web, mobile and Outlook is a clean start. But no templates, guided setup or importers are evidenced, and since every tier's price is 'upon request,' the trial-to-paid path likely detours through sales. 1 2
The Skeptic
The 14-day trial without credit card is honest and self-serve, but that's the only onboarding evidence on the evidence — no templates, no guided setup, no importers. And since every plan price is 'upon request', turning the trial into a purchase means a sales conversation, which is friction the anchor set punishes. 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
Substance over paperwork: a Munich GmbH, a named external data protection officer, Professional-plan hosting in Germany, an EVB-IT cloud contract on request and a self-hosted-in-your-network option. But ownership is unverifiable ('© InLoox, Inc.'), no public DPA is evidenced, product-data residency is asserted only on the pricing page, and the privacy policy documents Azure data centers 'in the EU and in the US' plus LinkedIn/YouTube trackers — closer to rubric level 5 than 8, and the evidence confirms no deletion guarantee for project data itself. 1 2 3
The Bootstrapper
A Munich GmbH, external German DPO, product hosting in Germany on the Professional tier and an EVB-IT cloud contract on request are substance, not paperwork. But the copyright line names 'InLoox, Inc.' with ownership unconfirmed, and the privacy policy admits rented Azure capacity 'in the EU and in the US' plus US ad subprocessors like LinkedIn and YouTube — CLOUD Act exposure is neither closed nor documented away. 3 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
German GmbH in Munich, Professional plan contractually hosted in Germany, an EVB-IT Cloud Contract on request — the German public-sector standard — and a self-hosted edition in our own network with AI confined to a custom LLM; that is real substance, not paperwork. But ownership is unknown (the footer says 'InLoox, Inc.'), no public DPA is evidenced, residency is confirmed only for one plan, and the subprocessor picture includes Azure with US regions, LinkedIn and YouTube, while cloud AI processing has no named processor at all. 2 3 1
The UX Purist
A Munich GmbH with German hosting by default and a self-hosted option is substance, not paperwork. But the copyright line reads 'InLoox, Inc.' with ownership otherwise unknown, no public DPA is evidenced (EVB-IT contract only upon request), and documented subprocessors include Azure regions in the US plus US ad-tech via the LinkedIn Insight Tag — that blocks the 8 anchor. 1 2 3
The Integrator
Substance beyond paperwork: a Munich GmbH, Professional edition hosted in Germany, EVB-IT cloud contract on request and a self-hosted option. Docked because ownership is unevidenced, the copyright line reads 'InLoox, Inc.', and documented subprocessors include Azure with regions in both the EU and the US, plus LinkedIn, Pipedrive and YouTube. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
A Munich GmbH with a German DPO, 'Hosted in Germany' on the pricing page and a self-hosted edition look good — but the footer copyright reads 'InLoox, Inc.', ownership is unverified, the DPA/EVB-IT contract is only 'upon request', and the only infrastructure actually documented is Azure 'located in the EU and in the US', i.e. within CLOUD Act reach. Claims over verification: 5. 1 2 3
Support & documentation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a stuck user gets unstuck: docs quality, support channels and their availability per plan, and the health of the learning surface.
0 — No docs beyond marketing pages; support is a contact form that may answer.
3 — Docs exist but are thin or stale; support on entry plans is effectively email-only with slow turnaround.
5 — Searchable help center covering the core product; chat or email support on all plans with reasonable response times.
8 — Deep, current docs incl. onboarding guides and templates; fast chat support not gated to top tiers; visible changelog.
10 — Docs, academy, community and support so good they are a reason to buy; SLAs published, support quality independent of plan.
The Data Protection Officer
The only evidenced learning surface is 'InLoox Trainings' on the pricing page — typically a paid service, not self-serve help. No help center, support channel, response time, SLA or changelog appears anywhere in the registry, which per my rules means it cannot be credited. 2
The Bootstrapper
The only support surfaces the evidence evidences are a contact form and a separate 'InLoox Trainings' offering — no help center, no support channels or response times per plan, no changelog. For a product where even the price requires a conversation, having no evidenced documentation is a genuine gap. 3 2
The Enterprise Architect
The only learning surface in evidence is 'InLoox Trainings', and a privacy-policy-described contact form; no help center, no docs, no changelog, no published SLA or support channel per plan. For two hundred seats, silence on support structure is itself information, and it sits at the thin-docs anchor. 2 3
The UX Purist
The only evidenced learning surfaces are 'InLoox Trainings' and a contact form — no help center, no changelog, no support channel per plan, no SLA anywhere in the evidence. For a tool that lives inside Outlook and a Gantt chart, a stuck user has nothing self-serve to read, which sits just above the marketing-pages-only floor. 2 3
The Integrator
The only evidenced support surface is 'InLoox Trainings' — likely a paid service. No help center, docs, support channel, SLA or changelog appear anywhere in the evidence; as someone who lives in the documentation, there is nothing to live in. 2
The Skeptic
The entire learning surface evidenced is a paid-sounding 'InLoox Trainings' line item; no help center, no changelog, no support channels or response times appear anywhere in the captured pages, and the support trail visible in the privacy policy is a contact form. A dead-silent docs record is information, and it says thin. 2 3
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
Every single tier — Professional, Enterprise, Enterprise Plus, Self-Hosted — reads 'Price upon request'; this is rubric level 0's definition of no public pricing, softened only slightly by published minimum user counts, billing units and a transparent no-card trial. A buyer cannot determine the payable cost before talking to sales. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Every single tier — Professional, Enterprise, Enterprise Plus, Self-Hosted — reads 'Price upon request'; there is not one payable number on the pricing page. Worse for me at three seats: the cheapest tier starts at a 5-user minimum, so a small team can't buy at all, and there's no free tier, only a 14-day trial. This is the 'contact sales' wall in its purest form — a 0 by the anchor's own definition. 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
Not a single payable number is public — Professional, Enterprise, Enterprise Plus and Self-Hosted are all 'price upon request', which is contact-sales pricing with extra steps. Credit for disclosing minimum users (5/10/10/20), billing periods, a card-free 14-day trial and an online shop with listed payment methods — structure without price is better than nothing, but only marginally. 2 1 3
The UX Purist
Every tier from Professional to Self-Hosted reads 'Price upon request' — not one payable number is public, so a buyer cannot compute cost before talking to sales. Published plan mechanics (min users, billing periods, per-user billing) and a card-free trial earn the single point above zero. 1 2
The Integrator
Every tier — Professional, Enterprise, Enterprise Plus, Self-Hosted — is 'Price upon request'; seat minimums and billing periods are public but no payable number is. A buyer cannot compute cost without contacting sales, so this sits just above the floor. 1 2
The Skeptic
Not a single euro figure is public: Professional, Enterprise, Enterprise Plus and Self-Hosted all read 'Price upon request' — the literal anchor-0 condition, softened one point only because seat minimums, billing periods and billing units are stated and the trial terms are clean. A buyer cannot compute the payable cost of this tool without talking to sales. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | 5 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 5 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The EU location is asserted on trust-page and pricing copy rather than in the privacy policy, which names no server location for the product, and hosting runs on US-based Microsoft Azure.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The Azure data centers are in Germany (Frankfurt am Main and Berlin), but Microsoft is US-headquartered, and the privacy policy additionally names US-based Freshworks Inc. as support-desk provider.
- 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.
- 18 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
- 9 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 product fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (16)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.inloox.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.inloox.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.inloox.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.inloox.com Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page www.inloox.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Imprint www.inloox.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Reporting — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Support & documentation — found from sitemap docs.inloox.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →