Project Management & Collaboration
Nozbe
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 Nozbe (apivision sp. z o.o.) · nozbe.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.
The panel's verdict
Nozbe is a project management tool from a Polish, founder-held vendor, and the bench splits sharply between how easily you can start and how little the captured facts show beyond that. Onboarding effort is the strongest criterion, clustering at 6-8: judges credit the Free plan's 1 workspace, project templates, "Create using AI" turning ideas into ready-to-run projects "in seconds", and projects open by default. Sovereignty follows at 5-8 and is the bench's one flagged split — three judges score 8, two score 7, and the skeptic 5, who calls the EU hosting claimed rather than verified because AWS is a US hyperscaler in the processor chain and the evidence marks legal entity, ownership, residency and subprocessor exposure unknown. The rest is thin. Reporting scores 0-2 and support & documentation 0-2: no report, dashboard, export, help center or support channel appears in the four captured marketing and legal pages. Integrations score 1-2, resting on a single email-to-task hook; pricing transparency scores 2-4 because Free, Premium and Business carry no price figures.
Speaks for it
- Free plan with 1 workspace, project templates, and AI that turns ideas into ready-to-run projects 'in seconds'
- Projects are open by default, so new users skip permission configuration
- GDPR page declares processors Amazon AWS and Hetzner with servers in Germany, Ireland and France, and personal data deleted on account close
- Native offline apps for Mac, Windows, Android, iPad and iPhone, plus a web app and Chrome PWA
- Email-to-task forwarding converts emails and attachments into tasks
Held against it
- No report, dashboard, filter or export path appears anywhere in the captured facts
- No help center, support channel, response-time promise or changelog is evidenced in the four captured pages
- Public tiers (Free, Premium, Business) carry no captured price, billing period or tax treatment
- Email-to-task is the only evidenced integration — no API, webhooks, calendar, Slack/Teams, or import/export path
- The evidence is silent on task assignment, comments, dependencies, workload views and guest access
Best for
- You need a self-serve task manager for yourself or a small team and can start from scratch, with no import of existing work
- Your compliance posture accepts AWS and Hetzner as declared processors with servers in Germany, Ireland and France and deletion on account close
- You work offline or across many devices and want native apps alongside a web app
- You capture work by email and want forwarded mail and attachments converted into tasks
Avoid if
- You need reports, dashboards or any export — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You depend on integrations or automation (API, webhooks, calendars, Slack/Teams, file storage) or on a documented support channel when stuck
- You must know the invoice before committing, since the captured pricing page names tiers but no prices
- You plan to start on the Free plan and need completed-task history beyond its 7 days
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
Team-shaped containers are evidenced — unlimited workspaces for 'departments, teams or businesses' and open-by-default projects with private options — but the evidence is silent on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload views and guest access. A shared container is not shared planning; nothing here proves anchor-5 territory. 1 2 3
The Bootstrapper
Workspaces (1 free, unlimited on Business) and projects that are open by default give a second user a defined place to stand, and the Business pitch explicitly names departments and teams. But the evidence never evidences task assignment, comments, dependencies, workload or guest access, so beyond shared projects the planning model stays per-person. 1 2 3
The Enterprise Architect
Workspaces and open-by-default projects imply shared work, and Business adds unlimited workspaces for departments, but the evidence evidences no assignments, comments, dependencies, workload/capacity views or guest/client access — nothing that carries planning for a 200-seat org. 1 2 3
The UX Purist
Shared workspaces — up to unlimited for 'departments, teams or businesses' — and open-by-default projects give a second user a defined place, but that's where it stops. The evidence is completely mute on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload or guest access: no evidence of any team-level planning view, so it sits at per-person lists plus shared rooms. 1 2 3
The Integrator
Shared workspaces exist ('Unlimited workspaces - perfect if you have many departments, teams or businesses') and projects are open by default with private exceptions, but the evidence is silent on assignments, comments, dependencies, workload views and guest access. That's a shareable container, not team-level planning, so it sits below the anchor that requires assigned tasks. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The pricing page sells 'unlimited workspaces - perfect if you have many departments, teams or businesses' and projects are open by default, so a second user at least has somewhere to live — but nowhere does the evidence capture assignment, comments, dependencies, workload views or guest/client access. I don't award team features a marketing page forgot to mention. 1 2 3
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 only reporting-adjacent facts are Premium time tracking and history-retention windows; no report, dashboard, budget, utilization or export of any kind appears in evidence. As DPO I note this also means data-portability paths (Art. 20) are entirely unevidenced. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Premium time tracking captures data, but the registry evidences no report, dashboard, filter or export of any kind — not even CSV out. Silence scores as no reporting beyond looking at the board. 2
The Enterprise Architect
The only reporting-adjacent facts are Premium time tracking and history retention from 7 days to unlimited; no report, dashboard, export, budget or utilization capability appears anywhere, and I cannot audit department-scale progress with that. 1 2
The UX Purist
Premium time tracking and plan-gated history retention collect raw data, but not a single report, dashboard, cross-project view or export path appears anywhere in the capture. The stopwatch never starts because there is no evidenced answer surface at all. 1 2
The Integrator
The only metric-adjacent facts are Premium 'Time tracking features' and history retention limits — no reports, dashboards, budgets, utilization, and no export path of any kind is evidenced. I can't tell what my projects look like, let alone get the answer out. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only fact adjacent to reporting is 'Time tracking features' on Premium; not a single report, dashboard, filter or export path appears anywhere in the evidence. Until something aggregates and exports, this is staring at the board. 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
The single real hook is the dedicated email-to-task address, plus native apps across platforms; no API, webhooks, calendar, comms or file-storage connector shows up anywhere in the evidence. Close to a closed box by this evidence. 1 3
The Bootstrapper
Email-to-task is a genuine ingestion path and native apps cover Mac, Windows, Android, iOS plus web/PWA, but that is the entire evidenced surface — no API, no webhooks, no calendar, Slack/Teams, storage or import/export path appears anywhere. 1 3
The Enterprise Architect
One inbound hook — email-to-task — plus native apps on five platforms; there is no evidenced API, webhooks, calendar, Slack/Teams, automation platform or import path, which for me means no exit path and no SSO/SCIM provisioning. 1 3
The UX Purist
Exactly one comms hook — email-to-task with attachments — plus native offline apps across Mac/Windows/Android/iOS, which are the product, not integrations. No API, no webhooks, no Slack/Teams, no calendar, no import from competitors, no export path: a closed box with a mail slot. 1 3
The Integrator
The sole integration surface on record is forwarding emails to a dedicated Nozbe address; no API, no webhooks, no calendar/comms/storage hooks, no automation platforms, no import or export paths. To me that's a closed box with a mail slot, one point above total closure. 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 free plan with no payment details, project templates, and AI that turns ideas into ready-to-run projects 'in seconds' put first value within reach fast. No guided-setup or importer path is evidenced, and the Free plan's 7-day history is a retention trap for teams that start there before upgrading. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
A permanent free workspace (not a card-on-file trial) with project templates and AI that turns an idea into a ready-to-run project suggests first value well inside a day on a web app with no install. But no guided setup and no importer for existing work are evidenced, which is what the top anchors require. 1 2 3
The Enterprise Architect
A free workspace, project templates and AI project creation point to fast self-serve first value, with a clean Free/Premium/Business ladder; nothing evidences trial-payment terms, guided setup or importers, so I stop short of 8. 1 2
The UX Purist
This is the one stretch where the tool moves: a free workspace with no payment details, templates, and 'Create using AI' that turns ideas into ready-to-run projects 'in seconds', while open-by-default projects delete permission configuration from the first hour entirely — sub-hour first value by design. Held below higher because no importer pulls existing work in, and the free plan forgets everything after 7 days, a memory cliff that bites the moment real usage starts. 1 3
The Integrator
Real self-serve with a free workspace, project templates and 'Create using AI' turning ideas into runnable projects — fast first value without payment details. But there is zero evidence of importers pulling existing work in, which always caps onboarding for me. 1
The Skeptic
A permanent free workspace, templates, AI project creation 'in seconds' and open-by-default projects that spare newcomers permission configuration point to fast self-serve value without payment details. But no importer for existing work and no guided-setup evidence are captured, so I stop short of the 'working project inside an hour' club. 1 2 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 GDPR page answers where the data lives: processors declared as Amazon AWS and Hetzner, servers and copies in Germany, Ireland and France, plus a genuine deletion-on-account-closure guarantee — behind a founder-held Polish company per the provenance line. The remaining exposure is AWS's US parent, which is precisely rubric level 8's documented hyperscaler-EU-region case; the computed 'unknown' attributes simply never read the DPA, and I did. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
Polish, founder-held vendor whose own GDPR page documents servers in Germany, Ireland and France on AWS and Hetzner, with an entrustment agreement and data deletion on account close — that is rubric level 8's documented US-hyperscaler-EU-region case. It stays off 10 because no full subprocessor list or verifiable DPA text is in the registry, only the GDPR page's description. 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
A Polish founder-held vendor with servers and copies in Germany, Ireland and France on AWS and Hetzner, and account deletion terminating the entrustment agreement — a genuinely clean exit. It misses 8 because no public DPA, subprocessor list or certification is evidenced, only assertions on the trust and GDPR pages. 3 4
The UX Purist
The vendor's own GDPR page states servers and copies sit in Germany, Ireland and France on AWS and Hetzner, under an Entrustment Agreement with deletion on account close — matching a Polish, founder-held vendor. AWS is precisely the documented US-hyperscaler-in-EU-region exposure rubric level 8 permits; rubric level 10's fully verifiable, extraterritorial-free subprocessor picture is not evidenced, and the attribute extraction itself flagged legal entity and ownership as unconfirmed. 3 4
The Integrator
Substance over paperwork: the vendor's GDPR page names Amazon AWS and Hetzner with servers and copies in Germany, Ireland and France, an entrustment agreement, and deletion on account close — the AWS exposure is identifiable and documented, which rubric level 8 tolerates. It stays at 7 because the evidence marks legal entity and ownership unknown and cautions residency isn't fully confirmed on vendor pages. 3 4
The Skeptic
The GDPR page contractually commits to servers on AWS and Hetzner 'located in Germany, Ireland and France', but AWS is a US hyperscaler sitting inside the subprocessor chain — CLOUD Act reach — and the evidence's own sovereignty computation marks legal entity, ownership and residency as unknown despite the 'European product… EU data protection' slogan. Claimed, not verified. 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 registry contains marketing, trust-center and GDPR pages only — no help center, no support channel, no response times, no changelog, nothing. I credit the GDPR page as good governance, but it does not unstick a stuck user; total silence on the support surface anchors this near zero. 1 3 4
The Bootstrapper
None of the four captured pages evidences a help center, a support channel with availability, a changelog or any learning surface — marketing, trust and GDPR pages only. For a stuck user, silence on this criterion scores at the bottom anchor. 1 2 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
The registry surfaces a trust center and a GDPR page but no help center, support channel, SLA or changelog; that is marketing-plus-legal, not a learning surface a 200-seat rollout can lean on. 3 4
The UX Purist
The capture yields a homepage, pricing page, trust center and GDPR page — marketing and legal, not learning surface. No help center, no guides, no changelog, no support channel of any kind is evidenced; a stuck user has nothing in this sheet to get unstuck with. 3 4
The Integrator
Not a single fact about docs, a help center, a changelog or any support channel appears across the captured homepage, pricing, trust and GDPR pages. By the anchors, total absence of an evidenced learning or support surface scores at the bottom. 1 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 public pricing page exists with named Free/Premium/Business tiers and their feature lines, but the captured evidence contains no price figures, billing-period split or tax treatment. I cannot verify the number on the invoice from this sheet, and that is exactly the gap rubric level 4-5 describes. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
The pricing page publicly splits Free, Premium and Business with feature differences, but the captured facts contain no actual price, no billing-period difference, no tax treatment and no seat minimum — the exact numbers I need at 3 and 30 seats. Tier names without numbers is a 3, not a 5. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
A public pricing page names Free, Premium and Business with feature gating, but no actual prices, seat minimums, billing-period difference or tax treatment is confirmed anywhere in the evidence — I cannot compute a 200-seat invoice from this. 1 2
The UX Purist
Tiers are publicly differentiated — Free with 1 workspace, Premium with time tracking, Business with unlimited workspaces — but not one currency figure, billing period, seat rule or tax treatment appears in the capture. The plan architecture is legible; the actual number on the invoice is invisible, so a buyer cannot price a team from the evidence. 1 2
The Integrator
A public pricing page does tier Free/Premium/Business by feature and a free plan exists, so it's not contact-sales territory. But no price figure, billing period or tax treatment is evidenced anywhere, so a buyer still can't determine the real payable cost from what's published. 1 2
The Skeptic
Tiers are public and their feature differences are visible — Free gets 1 workspace, Premium adds time tracking, Business adds unlimited workspaces — but not a single price, billing period or tax treatment made it into the captured facts. Knowing what's in each plan without knowing what each plan costs is precisely the anchor-3 shape, and I suspect the deciding numbers live in fine print the capture didn't surface. 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 | 4 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 4 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 claim comes from the DPA and holds only so long as the AWS regions used stay in Germany, Ireland and France; the marketing pages merely say 'EU data protection'.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. AWS is used only in its EU regions per the same sentence and may be contracted via an EU entity, which does not remove US CLOUD Act exposure; the Nozbe Classic terms additionally list Mailgun and Gmail (Google) for email and support, also US providers.
- 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.
- 5 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
- 3 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
- 2 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
- 2 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
- 2 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 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
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage nozbe.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page nozbe.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Trust center nozbe.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 GDPR page nozbe.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service — found from the homepage nozbe.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations — found from sitemap nozbe.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap nozbe.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap nozbe.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →