Project Management & Collaboration
Plaky
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by CAKE.com (CAKE Labs d.o.o.) · plaky.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
Plaky, a project management and collaboration tool from CAKE.com (CAKE Labs d.o.o.) with 231,563 users, is strongest at getting teams started, weakest on sovereignty. Onboarding effort scored 6-7 on a free-forever tier with unlimited users, projects, tasks and files, a 7-day free trial, and a template center promising a new board in seconds. Sovereignty scored 1-2: we found no public information on data residency, a data processing agreement or subprocessors, and the captured pages give different figures for the legal entity — the vendor line names CAKE Labs d.o.o. while the page footer reads CAKE.com Inc. Judges converged rather than split: reporting is a flat 4 on cross-board dashboards with customizable filters and no evidenced export path; collaboration depth runs 4-5 on members, comments with mentions and file sharing; integrations run 3-4 on a catalogue of two vendor-family products (Clockify, Pumble) plus a public API; and support documentation sits at 5-6 on claimed 24/7 human email, phone and chat support with under-one-hour average email response. Pricing transparency is not counted; we found no public information on Pro or Enterprise prices.
Speaks for it
- Free-forever tier with unlimited users, projects, tasks and files, plus a stated 7-day free trial
- Template center spanning event planning to Scrum boards that promises a new board in seconds
- Cross-board dashboards with customizable filters and custom views give a team-level picture beyond per-project status
- Task cards carry custom fields and automations, with members, comments with mentions and file sharing
- Claimed 24/7 support across email, phone and chat, 100% human-based, with an under-one-hour average email response
Held against it
- We found no public information on data residency, a data processing agreement, subprocessors or GDPR commitments
- The captured pages give different figures for the legal entity — the vendor line names CAKE Labs d.o.o. while the page footer reads CAKE.com Inc.
- Named integrations are two vendor-family products, Clockify and Pumble, plus an API link in site navigation
- We found no public information on exports of any kind, or on time, budget or utilization reporting
- We found no public information on task dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest and client permissions
Best for
- You want to start at no cost with unlimited users, projects, tasks and files on the free-forever tier, and launch from a template in seconds
- You need shared project basics — members, comments with mentions, file sharing and cross-board dashboards — rather than cross-team planning depth
- You already use Clockify or Pumble and want a project tool that connects to them
Avoid if
- You must verify data residency, a data processing agreement and subprocessors before adopting — sovereignty scored 1-2, the lowest range, and we found no public information on any of them
- Your reporting must leave the tool — we found no public information on exports of any kind, or on time, budget or utilization reporting
- Your planning depends on task dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest and client permissions — we found no public information on any of these
- Your stack needs third-party connectors — calendar, chat, storage or webhooks — beyond the two named vendor-family integrations
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
Assignments through the Person field, threaded comments with reactions, reminders and team tagging, per-item files and shared board permissions give real multi-person work, and the Gantt view plus multi-board dashboards add a team-level picture. We found no public information on dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest and client access, which keeps this below first-class team planning. 1 3 5 8 9
The Bootstrapper
Real multi-person work is evidenced: comment threads with reactions, pinning, reminders and user or team tagging, Person fields for assignment, Member and Viewer roles on invite, three board permission types, and dashboards that pull several boards at once. But we found no public information on guest or client access, task dependencies, or workload/capacity views, which keeps team-level planning short of first-class. 3 8 9
The Enterprise Architect
Shared boards with Person assignment, threaded comments with mentions, reactions and reminders, file tabs and a Gantt timeline carry real multi-person work, and Member/Viewer roles plus three board permission types give me a permission model I can actually administer. For two hundred seats I still need more: we found no public information on task dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest and client access beyond the two invite roles. 1 3 8 9
The UX Purist
Real shared projects are evidenced — Person-field assignments, threaded comments with mentions, reactions, pinning and reminders, files on every item, Member/Viewer invite roles, three board permission levels, and a Gantt timeline view. But I found no public information on guest or client access, task dependencies, or workload and capacity planning, which is exactly where a growing team starts improvising. 1 3 8 9
The Integrator
Assignments via Person fields, threaded comments with tagging, reactions and reminders, and multi-board dashboards alongside a Gantt view give a team genuinely shared structure, backed by granular board permissions and Member/Viewer roles. I found no public information on workload or capacity planning, item dependencies, or guest and client access, which is where the top band lives. 1 3 5 8 9
The Skeptic
Real multi-person work is evidenced: Person assignments, a Gantt timeline, threaded comments with mentions, pinning and reactions on all plans, and three tiers of board permissions. Cross-board dashboards exist, but we found no public information on workload or capacity views, task dependencies, or guest and client access. 1 3 5 8 9
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
Dashboards pull from multiple boards into pie and bar charts with configurable widgets and filters, export to PDF, PNG or ZIP, the activity log exports as CSV, and time reporting runs through Clockify. Chart types stop at pie and bar, and we found no public information on budget or utilization reporting, a custom report builder, or scheduled delivery. 4 5 6 8
The Bootstrapper
Multi-board dashboards with configurable pie or bar chart widgets, filters, sorting, and export to PDF, PNG or ZIP, plus an activity log exportable as CSV, is genuinely useful. Time and billable-hours reporting happens in the sibling product Clockify rather than here, and we found no public information on budgets or utilization reporting in the product itself. 4 5 6
The Enterprise Architect
Dashboards pull from multiple boards with configurable widgets, filters and sorting, exported to PDF, PNG or ZIP, and the per-task activity log exports as CSV — that activity export is the closest thing to an audit trail the pages show. Time reporting lives in Clockify by design, and we found no public information on budget or utilization reporting. 4 5 6 8
The UX Purist
Multi-board dashboards with configurable widgets, filters, sorting and PDF/PNG/ZIP export are genuine cross-project reporting, and activity logs export as CSV. But the chart palette stops at pie and bar, time reporting runs through the suite companion Clockify rather than natively, per-plan dashboard caps pinch cross-board work at one board on Free, and I found no public information on budget or utilization reporting. 4 5 6 8
The Integrator
Dashboards pull from multiple boards with configurable pie and bar widgets, filters and sorting, and they export to PDF, PNG or ZIP, with item activity exportable as CSV — real answers beyond the board itself. Time reporting is delegated to Clockify, the chart vocabulary stops at two types, and I found no public information on budgets, utilization, scheduled delivery or reporting access via the API. 4 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Dashboards do aggregate multiple boards with configurable widgets and filters, but the chart cupboard holds exactly two types — pie and bar — and export lands as PDF, PNG or ZIP rather than a data format. Time reporting is handed off to Clockify ("time reports created in Clockify"), and we found no public information on budget or utilization reporting; the only CSV export captured is the activity log. 4 5 6 8
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 integration surface names exactly two partners, Clockify and Pumble, both CAKE.com suite siblings, with genuine two-way Clockify sync, an API link, and board import from a CSV file. We found no public information on calendar, Slack or Teams, file storage or automation-platform connections, or on what the API actually covers. 1 6 9
The Bootstrapper
The only named integrations are the vendor's own suite products Clockify and Pumble, with two-way sync between Clockify and Plaky; an API with its own help page exists and boards can import from CSV. We found no public information on calendar, Slack/Teams or file-storage integrations, webhooks, or automation-platform support. 3 6 7
The Enterprise Architect
The captured pages name exactly two native integrations, Clockify and Pumble, both inside the same CAKE.com suite, alongside a documented API and CSV paths for board import and activity export. We found no public information on calendar, Slack/Teams or file-storage integrations, automation platforms, or webhooks, which for a two-hundred-seat stack is a thin connector story. 1 6 7 9
The UX Purist
The named integration catalogue is two products — Clockify and Pumble — both part of the vendor's own suite, with a genuinely deep two-way Clockify sync plus an API and CSV board import. I found no public information on calendar, Slack/Teams or file-storage integrations, webhooks, or automation platforms, so connectivity is essentially the in-house family plus an API of unshown depth. 1 6 9
The Integrator
The API is listed in the product navigation and board creation accepts a CSV upload, so there is a connection surface and a real import path. But the only named integrations are Clockify and Pumble — both CAKE.com suite siblings — and I found no public information on webhooks, calendar, Slack or Teams, file storage, or automation platforms, which leaves the visible catalogue resting on the vendor's own suite. 1 6 9 11
The Skeptic
The entire captured catalogue names two integrations — Clockify and Pumble — both siblings in the vendor's own suite, plus an API whose existence is confirmed but whose coverage we found no public information on. Import is generic CSV for boards; we found no public information on Slack or Teams, calendar, file storage, or automation-platform connections. 3 6 9
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-forever tier needs no credit card, signup is social or passwordless, and there is a quick-start guide plus a separate onboarding guide for owners and admins, with boards creatable from templates or a CSV file. That reads like a first project running within a day; we found no public information on in-app guided setup or on whether the Pro trial runs without payment details. 1 3 8 9
The Bootstrapper
Signup with Google, Apple, Microsoft or email, no credit card, and a free-forever tier means no payment cliffhanger; a first board can come from scratch, a template or a CSV file, with a quick-start guide and a separate owner onboarding guide behind it. That is a small team to working project well inside a day, likely inside an hour. 3 8 9
The Enterprise Architect
A team reaches a working project fast without paid help: social or passwordless login, a quick-start guide, a template center spanning nine scenarios, board creation from scratch, template or CSV, and a free-forever tier with no credit card and unlimited users. Signup to first project inside an hour is plausible on what the pages show. 1 3 8 9
The UX Purist
Signup to a working board plausibly lands inside an hour for a newcomer: Google, Apple, Microsoft or passwordless email login, a free tier with unlimited users and no credit card, board creation from template or CSV file, and dedicated quick-start plus workspace-admin guides. What's missing is in-product guidance and features that teach themselves as the team grows — the docs carry the first mile, not the tool. 1 3 8 9
The Integrator
Free forever with no credit card, Google/Apple/Microsoft or passwordless signup, a quick-start guide, an owner onboarding guide and a template center make the path from signup to a first working project short and unforced. Boards can be seeded from a CSV file and video tutorials exist for later; the only friction on record is the 7-day expiry of invitation links. 1 3 8 9
The Skeptic
Signup is self-serve with Google, Apple, Microsoft or email, the free tier is explicit about "No credit card", and boards can be spun up from templates or a CSV file, backed by a quick-start guide and an admin onboarding guide. The captured pages do not state what the 7-day trial asks for at signup, but the free path to a working project is plainly documented. 1 3 8 9
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
I read the legal pages before the feature list, and these do not answer where the data lives: we found no public information on data residency, hosting region, subprocessors or a data processing agreement, only links to privacy and security pages whose contents are not shown. The corporate signal in the captures is a copyright line reading 'CAKE.com Inc.' — a US-style entity form — with no EU residency or hosting commitment captured. 6 10 11
The Bootstrapper
The pages link cookies, terms, privacy and security documents and a status page, but no sovereignty attributes are on record — we found no public information on data residency, a DPA, subprocessors, or where the company and data actually sit, beyond a copyright line naming CAKE.com Inc. For a European buyer, nothing here can be verified. 6 10 11
The Enterprise Architect
Every captured page names CAKE.com Inc. as the legal entity, and we found no public information on data residency, a DPA, a subprocessor list, or certifications beyond a link to a security page. For a two-hundred-seat procurement I cannot place where the company or the data actually sits, and as evidenced this would not survive my review. 6 10 11
The UX Purist
Every captured footer names the copyright holder as CAKE.com Inc., and privacy, security and status pages exist, but I found no public information on data residency, hosting location, a data processing agreement, or any subprocessor list. A European buyer cannot verify from these pages where their projects and files actually sit, so I score by absence. 3 6 11
The Integrator
The captured pages surface one legal entity, CAKE.com Inc., holding the 2026 copyright, plus links to privacy and security pages whose contents were not captured. I found no public information on data residency, a data-processing agreement, or subprocessors — nothing a sovereignty-sensitive buyer can verify from this material. 6 10 11
The Skeptic
The vendor is named CAKE Labs d.o.o. while every copyright line in the captures reads "CAKE.com Inc." — and that is about all there is to verify. We found no public information on data residency, a DPA, subprocessors, or ownership control; a buyer here is taking everything on trust. 3 6 11
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 help center covers getting started, projects, administration and integrations with tutorials, and the surface shows a changelog, a system status page, and 24/7 email, phone and chat with a sub-one-hour average email response claim. We found no published service-level agreement and no public information on whether support quality varies by plan, so I stop short of the top band. 1 10 11
The Bootstrapper
Email, phone and chat around the clock, human-based, with an under-one-hour average email response and a 95% satisfaction figure on 18k+ ratings; the help center covers getting started through integrations, with tutorials, a visible changelog and a status page. We found no public information on published SLAs or on whether support quality varies by plan. 1 10 11
The Enterprise Architect
The support surface is strong: 24/7 hours across email, phone and chat with an average email response under an hour and claimed human-based service, a help center covering getting started through administration, video tutorials, a visible changelog and a status page. We found no published SLAs and no public information on which plans get which channel. 1 10 11
The UX Purist
The help center covers getting started, projects, administration, integrations and video tutorials, with a visible changelog and status page keeping the product honest, and support is claimed 24/7 by email, phone and chat with human agents and average email response under an hour. I found no published SLAs and no public information on whether channels or speed differ by plan, which holds this just short of the top tier. 1 10 11
The Integrator
The help center spans getting started, projects, administration, integrations and video tutorials, with an owner onboarding guide, a visible changelog and a system status page behind it — a learning surface I can navigate. Email, phone and chat are offered around the clock with a sub-hour average email response and no captured plan gating; I found no public information on published SLAs or an academy and community layer. 1 9 10 11
The Skeptic
The surface is genuinely there: a help center with getting-started guides and tutorials, a changelog link, a status page, and chat, email and phone claimed around the clock. But the "<1h average email response time" and "95% satisfaction (18k+ ratings)" figures are the vendor grading its own homework with nothing behind them in the captures, and we found no public information on how support availability or commitments vary by plan. 1 10 11
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 Free tier is fully described — unlimited users, projects, tasks and files, free forever — but we found no public information on Pro or Enterprise prices, only plan-differentiating limits such as boards per dashboard and an in-app upgrade flow that collects payment details at checkout. A buyer cannot determine the payable cost of a paid seat before entering the workspace. 1 5 9 11
The Bootstrapper
The Free tier is fully spelled out and it is the kind I want: unlimited users, projects, tasks and files, free forever, no credit card, with plan differences like boards-per-dashboard limits stated plainly. But the captured pages show no price for Pro or Enterprise at all — no per-seat number, no billing period, no tax treatment — so the payable cost of a paid seat cannot be determined before talking to the vendor. 1 3 5
The Enterprise Architect
The Free tier is fully described — unlimited users, projects, tasks and files, with per-plan dashboard limits spelled out — but we found no public information on Pro or Enterprise pricing, billing periods, seat minimums or tax treatment. As a buyer of two hundred seats I cannot determine what I would actually pay before talking to the vendor. 1 5 9
The UX Purist
The Free tier is fully public — unlimited users, projects, tasks and files, forever, no credit card, with a 7-day trial and documented upgrade steps — but I found no public price for the Pro or Enterprise tiers, no billing-period distinction and no tax treatment anywhere. A buyer can confirm Free costs nothing and then must enter the in-app upgrade flow to learn anything payable. 1 5 9
The Integrator
The free plan is fully public — unlimited users, projects, tasks and files, no credit card — and per-plan limits such as boards per dashboard are documented, but the captured pages give no price figures for Pro or Enterprise. The payable number only appears inside the in-app upgrade checkout, and I found no public information on billing periods or tax treatment. 1 5 9
The Skeptic
"Free forever" with unlimited users and projects is public and unambiguous, but the captured pages name Pro and Enterprise plans and even quote their dashboard limits — 15 boards per dashboard on Pro, 30 on Enterprise — while showing no price for either. We found no public information on seat prices, billing periods, or tax treatment; the real cost of the paid tiers is not determinable before talking to someone. 1 3 5 9
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 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.
- 10 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
- 3 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
- 1 legal 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
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page plaky.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Reporting — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Reporting — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Support & documentation — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Support & documentation — found from sitemap plaky.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →