Project Management & Collaboration
LiquidPlanner
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by LiquidPlanner, Inc. · www.liquidplanner.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.
LiquidPlanner at a glance
- Vendor
- LiquidPlanner, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates LiquidPlanner 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Portfolio Manager (formerly LiquidPlanner), from LiquidPlanner, Inc., is project management and collaboration software positioned for large organizations managing multiple projects and large teams. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Portfolio Manager (formerly LiquidPlanner), from LiquidPlanner, Inc., is project management and collaboration software positioned for large organizations managing multiple projects and large teams. The bench is clearest on the strength: collaboration depth scores cluster at 6-7, built on automatic workload levelling across multiple projects and dependencies, real-time scenario modelling, workload views in 30-, 60-, 90- and 180-day increments, and Monte Carlo simulations forecasting start and finish dates at a stated 90% confidence without manual date entry. The weakness is equally clear: integrations sit at a flat 3, with Slack, Jira and single sign-on the entire visible catalogue and no public information on an API or webhooks. Reporting splits the bench, 3-5 — four judges hold at 4, crediting portfolio-wide forecasts and early risk detection while noting that no export path is in evidence; the skeptic drops to 3 on that same absence, the bootstrapper rises to 5 for the forecasting itself. Sovereignty and onboarding effort both span 2-3, with compliance badges but no sovereignty attributes on record. No price appears anywhere captured.
Speaks for it
- Collaboration depth scores cluster at 6-7, on automatic workload levelling across multiple projects and dependencies.
- Monte Carlo simulations forecast start and finish dates at a stated 90% confidence level, without manual date entry.
- Task assignments, file sharing and real-time comments are documented, alongside real-time scenario modelling and early risk and capacity-overload detection.
- Workload distribution views cover 30-, 60-, 90- and 180-day increments across teams.
- Support docs hold at a flat 4 on named resources: detailed guides, video tutorials and customer support teams.
Held against it
- Integrations sit at a flat 3, with Slack, Jira and single sign-on the entire visible catalogue and no public information on an API or webhooks.
- Sovereignty spans 2-3, with GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II badges on a record carrying no sovereignty attributes, and no public information on data residency, DPA terms or subprocessors.
- Onboarding effort spans 2-3, with no public information on a self-serve signup, trial or templates and expert consultation offered as the escalation path.
- Reporting spans 3-5, and we found no public information on exports, budgets, time tracking or utilization reporting.
Best for
- You manage multiple interdependent projects across large teams and want automatic workload levelling with portfolio-wide visibility.
- You want forecast start and finish dates from Monte Carlo simulation at a stated 90% confidence instead of manual date entry.
- You need early warning of risks and capacity overload, with real-time scenario modelling as plans change.
- Your connections beyond Slack, Jira and single sign-on are not a deciding factor.
Avoid if
- You need an API, webhooks or automation-platform connections beyond Slack, Jira and single sign-on.
- You must document data residency, a DPA or subprocessors for a European tender.
- You need reports that leave the tool — exports, budgets or utilization figures.
- You want a self-serve signup and trial rather than a sales conversation and paid expert consultation.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Collaboration depth | 3.5 of 5 |
| Reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations | 1.5 of 5 |
| Onboarding effort | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Support & documentation | 2 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-wide visibility, task assignments, file sharing, real-time comments, automatic workload levelling across multiple projects and dependencies, and team workload views in 30-to-180-day increments are all claimed on the captured page — that is team-level planning as the headline feature, not an afterthought. We found no public information on guest or client access with permission control, which keeps this below the top of this range. 1
The Bootstrapper
Task assignments, real-time comments and file sharing are documented, and the automatic workload leveling, dependencies, and 30-to-180-day workload views across multiple projects read as genuinely first-class team planning. We found no public information on guest or client access or permission granularity, which keeps it shy of the top band. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Portfolio-level predictive scheduling from ranged estimates, automatic workload levelling across multiple projects and dependencies, and 30-to-180-day workload views are all evidenced alongside assignments, file sharing and real-time comments — that is first-class team-level planning. We found no public information on guest or client access or granular permissions, which is what holds this below the top band. 1
The UX Purist
Automatic workload levelling across multiple projects with dependencies, workload distribution views over 30/60/90/180 days, and real-time scenario modelling make planning team-first rather than per-person lists bolted together; task assignments, file sharing and real-time comments cover the daily loop. What I could not find is guest or client access or any permissions model beyond single sign-on, which caps the span between a small team and a structured department. 1
The Integrator
Portfolio-level visibility, automatic workload levelling across multiple projects with dependencies, and task assignments with real-time comments and file sharing are all stated on the page — that is first-class team planning, not a per-person task list. The step to the top band needs guest or client access with permissions, and we found no public information on that. 1
The Skeptic
Task assignments, file sharing, real-time comments, automatic workload levelling across multiple projects with dependencies, and 30–180 day workload views are all claimed — real team-level planning on paper. But it is one marketing page, and I found no public information on guest or client access or any permissions model, so I stop short of the portfolio-wide story at face value. 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 analytics on record genuinely aggregate across projects: Monte Carlo finish-date forecasts at a 90 percent confidence level, workload distribution across teams, and early risk and capacity-overload detection. But we found no public information on exports of any kind, budgets, tracked time, or customizable reports, so answers to management questions appear to live only inside the tool. 1
The Bootstrapper
Portfolio-wide visibility, risk and capacity-overload detection, and Monte Carlo finish-date forecasts are cross-project answers, not just per-project status views. We found no public information on exportable reports, budgets or utilization, so this reads as visibility rather than reporting as a product. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Real-time visibility across all projects plus early risk and capacity-overload detection are claimed, so reporting goes beyond single-project boards. We found no public information on exports, budgets, time tracking or customisable dashboards — and without an export path the answer never leaves the tool. 1
The UX Purist
The analytics are real — Monte Carlo simulations across the portfolio produce finish dates at a stated 90% confidence, and early risk and capacity-overload detection answers questions a board never does. But we found no public information on exports, budgets, utilization reporting, custom report builders or scheduled delivery, so the answers stay on screen and cannot leave the building. 1
The Integrator
The forecasting engine generates 90%-confidence dates via Monte Carlo simulation and workload distributions across 30 to 180 day windows, which does answer capacity questions across projects. But I found no public information on exports, budgets, time tracking or any report builder — analytics that cannot leave the tool are half an answer. 1
The Skeptic
Portfolio-wide real-time visibility and workload distribution views are the only reporting-adjacent claims present. I found no public information on export paths or time, budget and utilization reporting, so answering questions about the work is unevidenced beyond the live views. 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
The captured page names exactly two connections — Slack and Jira — plus Single Sign On. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, calendar, file storage, automation platforms, or import paths from competing tools, which leaves this at marquee-name level. 1
The Bootstrapper
Slack and Jira integrations plus single sign-on are named, and that is the whole visible catalogue. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, calendar or file-storage connections, or import paths from competing tools. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Two named integrations, Slack and Jira, plus Single Sign On — which I need for provisioning two hundred seats — are the entire evidenced catalogue. We found no public information on a public API, webhooks, automation platforms, or import and export paths from competitors. 1
The UX Purist
Slack, Jira and single sign-on are the entire visible catalogue — a handful of marquee names. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, calendar or file-storage connections, automation platforms, or import paths from other tools, which is the minimum posture rather than a connected stack. 1
The Integrator
Exactly two native integrations are named — Slack and Jira — plus single sign-on, which is a marquee pair and nothing more. We found no public information on a public API, webhooks, automation platforms or import paths out of the product, and for a tool that has to live inside a stack that silence decides the score. 1
The Skeptic
Two named integrations (Slack, Jira) plus Single Sign On is the entire catalogue on show. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, calendar hooks or automation-platform coverage. 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
New users are offered detailed guides, video tutorials, customer support teams and — for heavier needs — expert consultation services, and the product is positioned for large organizations managing multiple projects. We found no public information on a self-serve signup or trial path, templates, or time to a first working project, so I cannot credit a fast self-serve start. 1
The Bootstrapper
Guides and video tutorials exist for new users, but the offer of expert consultation services and the explicit pitch to large organizations point toward a helped start rather than quick self-serve value. We found no public information on self-serve signup, a free trial, or whether a trial requires payment details. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The evidenced onboarding surface is guides, video tutorials, customer support teams and expert consultation services for organizations needing more, aimed at large organizations. We found no public information on self-serve signup, a trial, guided setup or templates, so time-to-first-project is unknowable from public material. 1
The UX Purist
We found no public information on self-serve signup, a trial, templates or guided setup; the pitch targets large organizations and offers expert consultation services as the escalation path. The core mechanic also demands judgement before first value, since ranged estimates and priorities feed the simulation even though manual date entry is designed out. Guides and video tutorials exist, but nothing here evidences a signup-to-working-project path inside a day. 1
The Integrator
The page points large organizations at guides, video tutorials and paid expert consultation services, and the scheduling model itself needs ranged estimates, project priorities and team capacities configured before it will forecast anything. We found no public information on a self-serve trial, templates or whether payment details are required. 1
The Skeptic
Guides, video tutorials and paid expert consultation are the stated paths for new users, and the scheduling method itself demands ranged estimates, priorities and team capacities — configuration a newcomer cannot judge yet. I found no public information on a self-serve trial, guided setup or templates. 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
A GDPR Compliant badge, SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001 and a Trust Center link are the entire data-protection story, and the sovereignty record is empty: the captured page says nothing about data residency, the controlling legal entity's location, DPA terms, or subprocessors. As data protection officer I score compliance paperwork I cannot verify against where the data actually lives — and here I found no public information on where the data lives at all. 1
The Bootstrapper
The vendor page claims GDPR compliance alongside ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II, but the sovereignty record is empty: the company is LiquidPlanner, Inc., and no European entity is in evidence. We found no public information on EU data residency, a DPA, or subprocessors. 1
The Enterprise Architect
SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001 certification and a Trust Center are welcome procurement signals, and GDPR compliance is asserted, but no sovereignty attributes are on record. We found no public information on where the company and its data sit, contractual data residency, a DPA or subprocessors — that is not something I can defend in a European tender as it stands. 1
The UX Purist
The compliance shelf is stocked — GDPR-compliant, ISO/IEC 27001 certified, SOC 2 Type II, with a trust centre — but we found no public information on data residency, a European legal entity, DPA terms, or subprocessor exposure, and the name on record is LiquidPlanner, Inc. with no European entity alongside it in the capture. Certificates describe practice, not jurisdiction. 1
The Integrator
GDPR compliance, ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II certification plus a trust center are compliance language, and nothing on the captured page states where the company, the data or the subprocessors sit. We found no public information on EU data residency or a data processing agreement, so this remains paperwork rather than substance. 1
The Skeptic
GDPR compliance, ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 badges plus a trust centre are compliance paperwork, while the vendor trades as LiquidPlanner, Inc. and the record carries no sovereignty attributes. I found no public information on EU data residency, DPA terms or the subprocessor list. 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
Detailed guides, video tutorials and customer support teams are claimed for new users, with expert consultation services for organizations that need more, plus a Trust Center for security documentation. We found no public information on support channels per plan, response times, a searchable help centre, or a visible changelog, so I cannot place this above mid-grade. 1
The Bootstrapper
Detailed guides, video tutorials and customer support teams are evidenced, with expert consultation services available for organizations needing more help. We found no public information on support channels per plan, response times, or a changelog, so it stops short of confident help-center territory. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Detailed guides, video tutorials, customer support teams and expert consultation services are all evidenced as resources for new users, which suggests a real learning surface. We found no public information on support channels by plan, response times, SLAs or a changelog, so I cannot judge whether a stuck user is actually unstuck quickly. 1
The UX Purist
New users are promised detailed guides, video tutorials, customer support teams, and expert consultation for heavier organizations — a named surface, well above a bare contact form. But we found no public information on support channels by plan, response times, searchability of the docs, a changelog, or SLAs, so I cannot time an answer I cannot see. 1
The Integrator
New users get detailed guides, video tutorials and customer support teams, with expert consultation available for organizations that need more — a reasonable learning surface by the vendor's own description. We found no public information on support channels by plan, response times or a changelog, so the depth beyond those claims cannot be verified. 1
The Skeptic
Detailed guides, video tutorials and customer support teams are claimed, which clears the bar for docs existing. I found no public information on help-centre depth, response times, per-plan support gating or a visible changelog — the health of this surface is asserted, not shown. 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
The captured page carries no price, no tiers, no trial terms — nothing a buyer could use to estimate the payable cost before talking to the vendor. We found no public information on pricing of any kind, and on a transparency test that is the lowest score I can give. 1
The Bootstrapper
The captured vendor page shows no prices at all — no tiers, no free tier, no billing periods — and the positioning toward large organizations plus consultation services points to a sales conversation before any number. For a three-seat or thirty-seat buyer paying with their own card, the real cost is not determinable from anything published here. 1
The Enterprise Architect
We found no public information on pricing — no tiers, seat minimums, billing periods or tax treatment appear on the captured page. Every number would sit behind a sales conversation, which fails the most basic procurement question before it is even asked. 1
The UX Purist
The capture contains no price, no tier, no billing period, nothing a buyer could multiply a team by — the real payable cost is unknowable from these pages without a conversation. Combined with the large-organization positioning and consultation services, this reads as sales-led end to end, and that is the definition of opaque. 1
The Integrator
We found no public information on pricing — no tiers, seat costs, billing periods or tax treatment appear anywhere on the captured page. A buyer sizing this for a large organization has nothing to work with before talking to the vendor. 1
The Skeptic
The captured material contains no tier, seat or price figure of any kind. A buyer cannot determine any payable cost for their team before talking to the vendor, and the stated target of large organizations points the same way. 1
Questions about LiquidPlanner
Is LiquidPlanner European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where LiquidPlanner is based.
Where does LiquidPlanner store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does LiquidPlanner have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to LiquidPlanner?
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: LiquidPlanner alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 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 found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (liquidplanner.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. 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 www.liquidplanner.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →