whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

OpenProject

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by OpenProject GmbH · www.openproject.org

Compare with Jira → 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 UX Purist

Weighted verdict

Measures time-to-first-value with a stopwatch. Optimizes for clarity, density and software that teaches itself. Rejects fourteen-step setups and empty screens that offer no way forward.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The UX Purist

Collaboration depth

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.

Report an error

The UX Purist

Fine-grained role-based access at individual project level proves a second user has a defined seat, so this clears rubric level 0 — but that is the entire collaboration case the evidence makes. No assignment, comment, timeline, dependency or workload capability appears anywhere; planning depth is an empty screen from where I stand. 4

Report an error

Reporting

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.

Report an error

The UX Purist

Nothing on the evidence answers 'where is the work?' — no progress, time, budget or utilization view, no dashboard, no export path. The only API mentioned checks for new software versions, which reports on the vendor, not on the project; silence here is the answer. 3

Report an error

Integrations

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.

Report an error

The UX Purist

A handful of marquee hooks — Google SSO, Nextcloud/openDesk via OpenID Connect gated to the 250-user Corporate tier, mobile apps — plus a version-check API that covers zero of the product. That is rubric level 3 almost verbatim; public GPLv3 code on GitHub is extensibility in principle, but the evidence documents no plugin or product-API surface to hang it on. 2 3 4

Report an error

Onboarding effort

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.

Report an error

The UX Purist

A genuinely free Community tier with no user minimum and a 14-day trial that is 'risk-free without cancellation' means no sales call and no card — real friction removed. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates or importers, and the on-premises mode is a deployment project, not minutes-to-value; I can credit the fast door, not the first hour behind it. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The UX Purist

A Berlin GmbH with EU-hosted Enterprise Cloud, an Article 28 DPA signable in-product, SCCs and external audits — plus GPLv3 self-hosting as a total exit — is substance, not paperwork. 2 3 4

Report an error

Support & documentation

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.

Report an error

The UX Purist

Tiered support hours are published for every plan and there is a security contact plus an advisories mailing list — more than a contact form. But the evidence evidences no help center, no guides, no templates, no chat, no response times and no changelog; a GitHub repo is not a learning surface, and a stuck user's path to unstuck is undocumented. 2 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The UX Purist

Every paid tier is priced per user with seat minimums stated on the page, a free tier exists, the BIM surcharge is public, and there is a worked example — $2,175 for 25 Basic users over a year — whose arithmetic matches the headline exactly. Kept from 8: billing-period options and tax treatment are never stated, and Corporate is on request; the 25-seat floor is a barrier for small teams, but at least it is an honest one. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about OpenProject? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (15)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security page www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Imprint www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Reporting — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Reporting — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.openproject.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →