Project Management & Collaboration
Linear
Rest of world 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 Linear Orbit, Inc. · linear.app
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Linear, 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
Real team-level and cross-team planning exists — initiatives with a lead team, roadmaps, private teams, and guest accounts with limited workspace access. But the registry shows no workload/capacity view and no dependency management, and guest access detail beyond 'limited workspace access' is unevidenced, so it sits above 5 and short of 8. 2 4 1
The Bootstrapper
Real shared planning is evidenced — initiatives, roadmaps, PRDs, cycles, and assigning a team to lead an initiative, plus guest accounts with limited workspace access and private teams. But the evidence shows no workload/capacity view and no dependencies, which is what the 8 anchor demands, so it sits one notch below. 1 4 2
The Enterprise Architect
Team-level planning is clearly first-class — initiatives, roadmaps, PRDs, named team leads per initiative — and guest accounts with limited workspace access plus private teams give sane permission boundaries. But the evidence evidences no workload/capacity view, no dependency management and no comments, so it stops short of the anchor-8 department model. 1 4 2
The UX Purist
Assignments, initiatives with a named lead team, roadmaps/PRDs and real guest accounts take this past basic shared projects. But the evidence evidences no workload/capacity view and no dependencies — cross-team capacity is still a workaround waiting to happen. 4 1
The Integrator
Initiatives, roadmaps and PRDs with a team explicitly assigned to lead each initiative is real shared planning, and guest accounts with limited workspace access plus private teams handle outsiders with sane permissions. But the evidence never evidences dependency or workload/capacity views, so it stops short of first-class team-level planning. 1 4 2
The Skeptic
Shared planning is genuinely evidenced — initiatives, roadmaps, cycles, teams assigned to lead initiatives, guest accounts with limited access, private teams — but the evidence is silent on workload/capacity views and on explicit dependency management, so the anchor-8 requirements are half-met on faith, not evidence. 4 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 registry contains no reporting capability at all: no dashboards, no cross-project aggregation, no exports, no time/budget/utilization anywhere in the captured pages — the closest artifacts are 3-month audit logs and raw API/webhook access. Missing evidence is information; I score by what absence says. 2 4
The Bootstrapper
The evidence evidences zero reporting: no dashboards, progress, time, budget, or utilization views and no exports — the closest things are 3-month audit logs and a bare 'API and webhook access' line, meaning any answer about the work must be self-built. That is just above 'nothing beyond the board'. 4 2
The Enterprise Architect
Nothing in the evidence evidences any reporting, dashboards, exports, time or budget tracking — the pricing page's per-tier feature table and the homepage feature set are silent on it, and a capability the evidence does not evidence does not exist. The only adjacent surface is a priority inbox; anything beyond that you'd have to build yourself against the API. 2 1
The UX Purist
The homepage feature list and the full pricing comparison enumerate issues, agents, intake and code review — and not a single report, dashboard, time-tracking or export capability. The only data-out thread is 'API and webhook access', and I won't invent reporting on top of it. 2 1
The Integrator
The evidence is completely silent on reporting — no dashboards, no time/budget/utilization, no exportable reports; the only progress-adjacent signals are roadmap/initiative views and a 3-month audit log. API access means you could pull raw data and build your own, but nothing documents metrics or exports on top, and silence is absence. 2 4 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
API and webhook access, a Slack integration that creates and assigns issues, a Salesforce add-on, and MCP surfaces give real connectivity and extensibility. No calendar, file-storage, or automation-platform coverage is evidenced, and there is no evidence of competitor import paths or publicly documented API docs, so it cannot reach 8. 2 4 1
The Bootstrapper
API and webhook access plus MCP and third-party app approvals are genuine extensibility, and Slack can create and assign issues with a Salesforce add-on as concrete catalog entries. But no calendar or file-storage integrations, no automation-platform support, and no competitor import paths are evidenced, which caps it below the 8 anchor. 2 1 4
The Enterprise Architect
API and webhook access is confirmed, Slack integration creates and assigns issues in-channel, and MCP plus an agent platform make the tool genuinely extensible. But the native catalogue evidenced is just Slack and a Salesforce add-on — no calendar, file storage, automation-platform or competitor-import paths appear — so I can't credit it past the common set. 2 1
The UX Purist
Documented API and webhooks, MCP access and working Slack automation ('@Linear create issues and assign to me') plus a paid Salesforce add-on sit above the common set, and MCP is a genuine extensibility surface. But the evidenced native catalogue is two names — no calendar, file storage, automation-platform or competitor import paths appear anywhere. 2 4 1
The Integrator
API and webhook access is confirmed on the pricing page, Slack can create and assign issues via @Linear mentions, MCP surfaces exist, and the Salesforce add-on plus third-party app approval controls point at a real ecosystem. But the evidenced catalogue stops there: no calendar, file storage, automation-platform support or competitor import paths anywhere, and export completeness — my exit test — is unevidenced. 2 1 4
The Skeptic
API and webhooks are stated, MCP access exists, and Slack automation is real — but the native catalogue evidenced is two names (Slack, and Salesforce as a paid add-on, a hidden-cost flag), with no calendar, no automation-platform coverage and no import/export paths from competitors shown. 2 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
The Free $0 tier with unlimited members and a self-serve 'Get started' path means no payment details and no sales call before value. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates, or importers pulling existing work in, and the 2-team/250-issue caps bind quickly. 2
The Bootstrapper
The free tier is $0 with unlimited members and a self-serve 'Get started' — no card, no sales call — and automatic intake turns conversations into routed, prioritized issues. Docked because nothing in the evidence evidences templates, guided setup, or an importer to pull existing work in. 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
A real $0 self-serve tier with unlimited members, Google SSO and no payment details lowers the friction to first project. But no guided setup, templates or importers are evidenced, and migration/onboarding support is listed under the annual-only Enterprise tier — a small team either wings it or buys my tier. 2 4
The UX Purist
The stopwatch starts clean: the free tier is $0, unlimited members, no payment details, straight 'Get started'. But the evidence shows no templates, no importer and no guided setup, and 'migration & onboarding support' is an Enterprise line item — nothing pulls existing work in, so the tool doesn't teach its own ramp. 2 1
The Integrator
A $0 tier with 'Get started', unlimited members and Google SSO is a genuine self-serve path with no payment details at the door. But the evidence shows no templates, no guided setup and — the part I care about — no importers to pull existing work in, so I can't credit the top of the scale. 2
The Skeptic
A genuinely self-serve free tier with unlimited members and no card is the right start, but nothing evidences templates, guided setup or importers to pull existing work in, and the free caps (250 issues, 2 teams, 10MB uploads) mean the honeymoon is short before paid tiers enter the picture. 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the company and the data actually sit: legal entity, ownership control, data residency, and subprocessor exposure to non-EU jurisdictions.
0 — Non-European vendor, data on US infrastructure under US law, no DPA worth the name.
3 — DPA and GDPR language present, but hosting defaults to the US or ownership sits outside Europe — compliance paperwork over substance.
5 — EU data residency is available and contractually fixed, but the vendor or its controlling owner is non-European, or core subprocessors put data within CLOUD Act reach.
8 — European company under European control with EU-resident data and a public DPA; remaining exposure is limited to identifiable subprocessors (e.g. a US hyperscaler's EU region) and is documented.
10 — European company, European control, EU-only data residency on European infrastructure, subprocessor list free of extraterritorial reach — verifiable, not asserted.
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy states the services are 'hosted and operated in the United States through Linear and its service providers,' under a US-incorporated entity at a San Francisco address, with SCCs as the transfer mechanism — compliance paperwork over substance. EU storage is only an optional choice at workspace creation, not a contractual default, and no subprocessor list exists to assess extraterritorial exposure, which I treat as a negative, not a neutral. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
This is a US-incorporated company at a San Francisco address whose privacy policy states the services are 'hosted and operated in the United States'; EU residency is only an opt-in choice at workspace creation, backed by SCC-DPA language and GDPR commitment. Compliance paperwork over substance — the 3 anchor almost verbatim. 3 4 1
The Enterprise Architect
US entity in San Francisco, privacy policy states services are 'hosted and operated in the United States through Linear and its service providers', and EU residency is merely an option at workspace creation rather than a guarantee — GDPR commitment and SCCs are present, but the subprocessor exposure is undocumented. This is compliance paperwork over substance; it would not survive an EU-subsidiary data-protection review. 3 4
The UX Purist
A textbook anchor-3: GDPR commitment and SCCs on paper, but Linear Orbit is a San Francisco entity whose services are 'hosted and operated in the United States'. The EU region is an opt-in choice at workspace creation, not an EU-only guarantee — paperwork over substance. 3 4
The Integrator
The privacy policy states plainly the services are 'hosted and operated in the United States' under a San Francisco legal entity; EU residency is only an optional choice at workspace creation, not a guarantee. GDPR commitment and an SCC-based DPA is compliance paperwork over substance — US vendor, US defaults. 3 4
The Skeptic
San Francisco entity, privacy policy stating the service is 'hosted and operated in the United States', EU residency offered only as an optional checkbox at workspace creation, and SCCs doing the transfer work — this is compliance paperwork over substance, with a US controller whose own CLOUD Act exposure is never addressed and the subprocessor list 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
The only evidenced support channel is hello@linear.app from the privacy policy, and priority support is gated to the Enterprise tier. No help center, product documentation, changelog, or learning surface appears anywhere in the registry — below rubric level 3, since I cannot confirm docs exist at all. 2 3
The Bootstrapper
The only support signals in the entire sheet are a hello@ email and 'Priority support' locked to the Enterprise tier; no help center, docs, changelog, chat, or SLA appears anywhere. A stuck team on Free or Basic has email only, and I cannot even confirm documentation exists. 3 2
The Enterprise Architect
The entire evidenced support surface is a hello@ email address, while priority support and account management are gated to the contact-sales Enterprise tier. No help center, onboarding guides, changelog or SLAs appear anywhere in the captured pages — for 200 seats that is a support model I cannot underwrite. 3 2
The UX Purist
The entire captured support surface is hello@linear.app and 'Priority support' reserved for Enterprise; no help center, guides, academy or changelog appear on any page. A stuck user on Free or Basic is emailing a marketing alias and hoping. 2 3 1
The Integrator
The registry evidences exactly one support surface: a generic hello@linear.app email, with 'Priority support' gated to the Enterprise tier. No help center, no chat, no changelog, no SLA appears anywhere — and for a product selling API and webhooks, having zero documented docs surface in the evidence is itself disqualifying for a higher score. 3 2
The Skeptic
No help center, academy or changelog appears anywhere in the captured evidence — the only support artifact is a generic hello@linear.app mailbox — and the pricing page reserving 'Priority support' and 'Account management' for Enterprise tells you exactly what the lower tiers don't get. 2 3
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 exists and the Free tier is fully specified with its limits, but only two tiers carry numbers — the middle tiers' prices and monthly/annual split are not captured, Enterprise is custom annual-only with 'contact sales,' and items like the Salesforce add-on have no public price. SAML/SCIM living only in the opaque Enterprise tier means a deciding factor has no number. 2 1
The Bootstrapper
The free tier answers plainly — $0, unlimited members, 2 teams, 250 issues, with per-tier limits tabulated. But the evidence records no dollar figures for the paid Basic/Business tiers, the Salesforce integration is an unpriced 'Add-on', and Enterprise is custom, annual-only 'Contact sales' — so I cannot state the payable cost at 3 or 30 seats from this evidence. 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
The tier structure is unusually legible — issues, teams, file-upload and SSO limits tabulated per plan, a genuine free tier, and an honestly disclosed custom annual-only Enterprise tier. But the evidence carries no dollar figures for the Basic and Business tiers, nor billing-period or tax treatment, so I cannot confirm the headline number is the invoice number. 2 1
The UX Purist
A real pricing page exists with a fully specified free tier and an honestly labeled custom Enterprise (annual-only is stated). But the evidence records no prices for the two paid self-serve tiers, no billing-period difference, no tax treatment, and a Salesforce add-on with no number — the payable total for a team is not computable from the page. 2 1
The Integrator
A public pricing page with a clean per-tier limit matrix (issues, teams, uploads, SSO) and a fully specified $0 tier is a decent start. But the only dollar figures in the evidence are $0 and Enterprise 'Custom, annual billing only' — the paid self-serve prices, tax treatment and billing-period differences are nowhere evidenced. 2 1
The Skeptic
A public pricing page exists with a fully detailed free tier, but the evidence captures no actual dollar figures for the Basic and Business tiers, the Enterprise tier is custom and annual-only, and the Salesforce integration is an add-on with no price shown — so a buyer still cannot determine the real payable cost before talking to sales. 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 optional ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The privacy policy separately states the Services are "hosted and operated in the United States", and the region is only selectable when creating a workspace, so EU residency is an opt-in rather than the stated default.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Stripe is named only for payment processing, not workspace content, and the DPA's Exhibit B subprocessor list is elided from the excerpt, so other data-processing providers are not visible.
- 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.
- 48 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
- 20 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
- 9 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
- 6 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
- 5 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 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
- 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
- 2 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage linear.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page linear.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy linear.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security page linear.app Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Data processing agreement (dpa) linear.app Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Support & documentation — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Support & documentation — found from sitemap linear.app Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →