Project Management & Collaboration
ProjectManager
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ProjectManager.com · www.projectmanager.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.
ProjectManager at a glance
- Vendor
- ProjectManager.com
- 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 ProjectManager 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. ProjectManager's scored core is strong: collaboration depth and reporting both hold at 8, built on dependencies with a critical-path filter, portfolio dashboards, workload and availability reports, and eight named report types exported to PDF, Excel or CSV. 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
ProjectManager's scored core is strong: collaboration depth and reporting both hold at 8, built on dependencies with a critical-path filter, portfolio dashboards, workload and availability reports, and eight named report types exported to PDF, Excel or CSV. Integrations score 7–8 on a REST API at version 4 with Swagger/OpenAPI definitions, SDKs and documented rate limits, plus Microsoft Project import back to 2003, held below the top band because we found no public information on webhooks. Pricing transparency sits at a flat 2: the only public figure is an Advanced Collaboration bundle at $5/user/month, the captured pages show no plan prices, and the Teams integration requires a Business or Enterprise account. Sovereignty scores span 1–3: the legal entity is a US company in Austin, Texas, all customer data is stored in Amazon AWS, EEA/UK personal information is transferred to the United States under Standard Contractual Clauses, and we found no public information on EU data residency or a public DPA. Onboarding scores range 6–8, split between thorough import tooling and the vendor's "days, not weeks" ramp-up copy.
Speaks for it
- Eight named report types — portfolio status, project status, project plan, tasks, timesheets, availability, workload and variance — each customizable, filterable and exportable to PDF, Excel or CSV.
- A REST API at version 4 with Swagger/OpenAPI definitions, SDKs, documented rate limits and access for trialists during the free 30-day trial.
- Importers for Microsoft Project files from 2003 through 2019 plus Excel and CSV, with a downloadable template, automatic header detection and automatic invites for imported assignees.
- Team-level planning carried by Gantt dependencies with a critical-path filter, portfolio dashboards, workload and availability reports, and a free guest license for stakeholders.
- A learning surface of knowledge base, product videos, a Training Academy, weekly 30-minute live demos and a Developer Center the vendor says is updated regularly.
Held against it
- The captured pages show no plan prices; the only public figure is the Advanced Collaboration bundle at $5/user/month, disclosed in a setup guide.
- The Integrations panel and the Microsoft Teams integration can require an upgrade to a Business or Enterprise account, a cost gate that appears in help pages rather than at signup.
- Personal information from the EEA and the United Kingdom is transferred to the United States under Standard Contractual Clauses, and we found no public information on EU data residency, a public DPA or a subprocessor list.
- We found no public information on webhooks, a custom report builder or scheduled report delivery, the gaps named below the top band of integrations and reporting.
- We found no public information on chat support, response-time commitments or a visible changelog.
Best for
- You need cross-portfolio reporting on time, budgets and utilization, with eight standard report types and PDF, Excel or CSV export.
- You are migrating from Microsoft Project and need imports from files back to the 2003 release, including baselines and custom columns.
- Your team plans at team level — workload and availability against capacity, dependencies with a critical path — rather than personal task lists.
- You build your own connections and want a documented API with SDKs, rate limits and access during the free 30-day trial.
Avoid if
- You must fix a payable per-seat cost before talking to sales — the captured pages publish no plan prices.
- Your procurement requires EU data residency or a public data processing agreement — the pages document EEA-to-US transfers under Standard Contractual Clauses and we found no public information on either.
- You expect the Microsoft Teams integration or the Integrations panel on an entry edition — both can require an upgrade to a Business or Enterprise account.
- You need your team productive on day one — the vendor's own copy frames ramp-up in "days, not weeks."
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Collaboration depth | 4 of 5 |
| Reporting | 4 of 5 |
| Integrations | 4 of 5 |
| Onboarding effort | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
| Support & documentation | 3.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 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
Team-level planning is genuinely evidenced: workload and availability reporting, resource scheduling across projects, dependencies and critical path on the Gantt, portfolio dashboards, custom roles with project restrictions, and a free guest license for stakeholders. Task comments with @mentions, attachments and notifications across List, Board and Gantt views round it out. We found no public information on client-scoped portals or links between projects, which keeps it short of the very top of the scale. 1 4 7 13
The Bootstrapper
Team-level planning is genuinely first-class: workload and availability reports against capacity, Gantt dependencies with a critical path filter, portfolio views across projects, a free guest license for stakeholders, and custom roles with user permissions and approval workflows. The wrinkle for a card-carrying buyer is an "Advanced Collaboration" bundle priced at $5/user/month purchasable in-app or via sales, which signals some collaboration costs extra on top of the plan. 1 4 7 11 13
The Enterprise Architect
Custom roles, user permissions, project restrictions and a free guest license give me a permission model I can defend at two hundred seats, while portfolio dashboards, workload and availability reporting, and Gantt dependencies with critical path make team-level planning first-class. I found no public information on structured client involvement beyond the guest license or on how the same model serves a two-person shop, so I stop one step short of the top. 1 4 7 13
The UX Purist
Task comments with @mentions, attachments and automatic notifications run across List, Board and Gantt views, and the Gantt carries dependencies and critical path. Team-level planning is real rather than claimed: portfolio dashboards, workload and availability views, custom roles with approval workflows, and a free guest license that gives stakeholders a defined place. I found no public information on cross-project capacity trade-offs beyond the shipped reports, so it sits at first-class team planning rather than the full span. 1 4 5 13
The Integrator
Team-level planning is genuinely carried: dependencies and a critical-path filter on the Gantt, workload and availability reports that show who is overallocated, custom roles with permissions and approval workflows, and a free guest license for stakeholders. Comments carry files, formatting and @mentions across List, Board and Gantt views, so the second through fortieth user have a real place in the model. 1 4 7 13
The Skeptic
Assignments, task comments with @mentions and notifications, dependencies with critical-path filtering, cross-project portfolio dashboards, workload and availability reports and a free guest license are all documented across the product and learning pages, so team-level planning is evidenced as first-class rather than a per-person list. The custom-roles-and-permissions story is asserted in marketing copy only, so I stop short of crediting the full span. 1 4 7 13
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
Eight named reports — portfolio status, project status, project plan, tasks, timesheets, availability, workload and variance — cover time, budget and utilization across projects, are described as customizable and filterable, and export to PDF, Excel and CSV with an emailed offline option. Live project, summary and portfolio dashboards plus a Power BI integration add depth. We found no public information on a custom report builder or scheduled delivery, so this is solid configurable cross-project reporting rather than a reporting product in itself. 6 7 8
The Bootstrapper
Eight named reports — portfolio status, project status, project plan, tasks, timesheets, availability, workload, variance — cover progress, time, budgets and utilization across the portfolio, each customizable with filters and exports to PDF, Excel and CSV, backed by live dashboards and a Power BI feed. I found no public information on a custom report builder or scheduled delivery, so it stops short of reporting as a product in itself. 6 7 8
The Enterprise Architect
Eight named reports including portfolio status covering time, budget and resource health, variance against baselines, and timesheets with approval columns, exported to PDF, Excel or CSV, answer the questions an audit committee will ask. I found no public information on a custom report builder or scheduled delivery, though the Power BI bridge with real-time project data offsets some of that for enterprise buyers. 6 7 8
The UX Purist
Eight named reports cover portfolio status, variance against plan and baseline, timesheets, workload and availability — each filterable, customizable and exported to PDF, Excel, CSV or an emailed offline copy, with live dashboards and a Power BI connection on top. That clears cross-project time, budget and utilization depth. I found no public information on a custom report builder or scheduled delivery, and the documented API endpoints are themselves described as still being built out, so I stop short of reporting-as-a-product. 6 7 8 9
The Integrator
Eight named reports — portfolio status, timesheets, availability, workload, variance against baselines — each filterable, customizable and exportable to PDF, Excel or CSV, with live portfolio dashboards and a Power BI path for real-time data. The gap to the top is a true custom report builder and scheduled delivery; I found no public information on either. 6 7 8
The Skeptic
Eight documented report types cover time, budgets, utilization, baseline variance and portfolio health, with customization, filtering and PDF, Excel, CSV or emailed offline export. The captured pages show no custom report builder or scheduled delivery, and the developer documentation itself says endpoints are still being built, so reporting as a product in itself is not evidenced. 6 7 13
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 catalogue is broad — over 1,000 apps claimed, with named Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google suite, Jira, Salesforce, QuickBooks, Power BI and Zapier coverage — and the REST API v4 comes with SDKs, Swagger/OpenAPI definitions, documented rate limits, Bearer authentication and a regularly updated Developer Center open to trialists. Real import paths exist from Microsoft Project files back to 2003 plus Excel and CSV, with column mapping and baseline handling, and a ChatGPT surface is listed. We found no public information on webhooks, and the endpoint set is described as still expanding, so full extensibility and exit are not evidenced. 5 8 9 10
The Bootstrapper
A long named catalogue (Slack, Microsoft Teams, Jira, Salesforce, QuickBooks Online, Xero and more, plus a Zapier bridge), real import paths from MS Project versions 2003-2019, Excel and CSV, and a REST API v4 with SDKs, Swagger definitions, documented rate limits and trial access. Two things hold it back: the integrations panel and the Teams integration can require a Business or Enterprise account, and I found no public information on webhooks. 5 8 9 10 11
The Enterprise Architect
A broad native catalogue across Google, Microsoft, Slack, Jira, Salesforce and the accounting stack, plus Zapier, Okta and Azure Active Directory named for single sign-on, a documented REST API v4 with Swagger definitions, SDKs and rate limits, and real Microsoft Project round-tripping with baselines and custom columns make this an integration story I can procure against. I found no public information on webhooks, and the developer center itself notes endpoints are still being built, so completeness of an exit-via-API path is not established. 2 5 8 9 10
The UX Purist
A REST API on version 4 with SDKs, Swagger/OpenAPI definitions, documented rate limits, trial-period access and a regularly updated Developer Center sits beside a long native catalogue — Slack, Teams, Jira, Salesforce, QuickBooks, Power BI, Zapier — and real import paths from Microsoft Project versions 2003 through 2019 plus Excel and CSV, including baselines and custom columns. The ChatGPT surface is a genuine extensibility signal. I found no public information on webhooks, and the vendor's own Developer Center says the endpoint list is still growing, so this is broad rather than ecosystem-grade. 1 5 8 9 10
The Integrator
This is close to ecosystem-grade: a REST API on version 4 with Swagger/OpenAPI definitions, SDKs, documented rate limits, Bearer auth, trial access and an upgrade path from the old versions; a broad named catalogue from Slack and Teams to Jira, Zendesk and two ERP bridges; first-class Zapier; and real MS Project round-tripping that even imports baselines and custom columns. What holds it back is that I found no public information on webhooks anywhere in the developer material, so event-driven flows have to ride Zapier instead of native push. 5 8 9 10
The Skeptic
The native catalogue is genuinely broad (Slack, Microsoft Teams, Jira, Salesforce, QuickBooks, Power BI, and more), the REST API ships with Swagger/OpenAPI definitions, SDKs, documented rate limits and trial access, and Microsoft Project import reaches as deep as baselines and calendars. But the "over 1,000 apps" headline rides on Zapier, and we found no public information on webhooks or on a complete exit path out via the API, which leaves the top of this criterion unearned. 5 8 9 10
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
Self-serve is real: a free 30-day trial, project templates, and importers for Microsoft Project, Excel and CSV with a downloadable template and demo import tab pull existing work in quickly. The vendor's own words frame ramp-up as days rather than weeks, and we found no public information on guided setup or whether the trial runs without payment details. Edition gating also surfaces in help pages rather than at signup — the Integrations panel and Teams need Business or Enterprise, and Advanced Collaboration costs $5/user/month. 1 10 11 13
The Bootstrapper
A free 30-day trial, featured templates, and unusually thorough import tooling — downloadable template, auto-detected headers, numbered column mapping, resource and baseline import — get a small team to a working project fast. The vendor itself frames ramp-up as "days, not weeks," and I found no public information on guided setup or whether the trial asks for payment details. 1 10 13
The Enterprise Architect
A free 30-day trial, featured templates and a genuinely thoughtful import path — downloadable template, automatic header detection, sensible date defaults, invite-on-import for assignees — get a team to a working project fast. I found no public information on in-app guided setup or whether the trial takes payment details, and capabilities like the Microsoft Teams bot sit behind Business or Enterprise editions. 1 10 11 13
The UX Purist
The import path teaches itself well: a downloadable template, a demo-data tab, auto-detected headers, sensible date defaults and an invite popup for unmapped assignees, with featured templates and a free 30-day trial on top. But the vendor's own copy promises ramp-up in "days, not weeks", and I found no public information on guided in-app setup or whether the trial asks for payment details — my stopwatch stops somewhere between a day and an hour. 1 6 10 13
The Integrator
Free 30-day trial, project templates, and importers that carry MS Project (versions 2003 through 2019), Excel and CSV in with a downloadable template, auto-detected headers, numbered column mapping and automatic invites for imported assignees — existing work arrives with you rather than being retyped. Sensible defaults like planned dates falling back to today with a one-day duration keep the first import from stalling. 1 6 10 13
The Skeptic
A free 30-day trial, project templates and an import path with a downloadable template, automatic header detection and sensible date defaults point to a fast start without paid services. The captured pages never say whether the trial requires payment details, we found no public information on a guided setup flow, and the strongest self-description is ramping up "in days, not weeks", which is slower than the best case. 1 6 10 13
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the company and the data actually sit: legal entity, ownership control, data residency, and subprocessor exposure to non-EU jurisdictions.
0 — Non-European vendor, data on US infrastructure under US law, no DPA worth the name.
3 — DPA and GDPR language present, but hosting defaults to the US or ownership sits outside Europe — compliance paperwork over substance.
5 — EU data residency is available and contractually fixed, but the vendor or its controlling owner is non-European, or core subprocessors put data within CLOUD Act reach.
8 — European company under European control with EU-resident data and a public DPA; remaining exposure is limited to identifiable subprocessors (e.g. a US hyperscaler's EU region) and is documented.
10 — European company, European control, EU-only data residency on European infrastructure, subprocessor list free of extraterritorial reach — verifiable, not asserted.
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor is ProjectManager.com, Inc. of Austin, Texas, its security page says all customer data is stored in Amazon AWS with no region stated, and its own privacy policy describes transferring personal information from the EEA and the United Kingdom to the United States under Standard Contractual Clauses. GDPR-style rights and deletion language and a SOC 2 report are present, but we found no public information on a data processing agreement, an EU hosting option, or a subprocessor list — a US entity with documented EEA-to-US flows and no verifiable residency is compliance paperwork over substance to me. 2 3
The Bootstrapper
This is a US company with a legal contact in Austin, Texas, hosting on Amazon AWS, whose privacy policy contemplates personal information from the EEA and UK being transferred to the United States under Standard Contractual Clauses — compliance paperwork over substance. I found no public information on EU data residency options, a public DPA, or a subprocessor list. 2 3
The Enterprise Architect
The legal entity is a US company with an Austin, Texas address, hosting sits on Amazon AWS with no region disclosed, and the privacy policy discloses EEA and UK personal information being transferred to the United States under standard contractual clauses — that does not survive my European procurement bar. GDPR-style rights and the transfer paperwork are documented, which lifts this off the floor, but I found no public information on EU data residency, a public data processing agreement, or the subprocessor list. 2 3
The UX Purist
The legal entity is ProjectManager.com, Inc. of Austin, Texas, all customer data is stored in Amazon AWS, and the privacy policy contemplates personal information from the EEA and the UK being transferred to the United States under Standard Contractual Clauses. GDPR-style paperwork exists — access, correction, portability and deletion rights — but ownership and hosting are American, which reads as compliance language over European substance. I found no public information on EU data residency, a DPA, or the subprocessor list. 2 3
The Integrator
The captured pages put the legal contact in Austin, Texas and all customer data on Amazon AWS, with personal information transferred from the EEA and UK to the United States under Standard Contractual Clauses — compliance paperwork, not European substance. I found no public information on EU data residency, a European legal entity or a public DPA. 2 3
The Skeptic
The legal entity sits in Austin, Texas, all customer data lives in Amazon AWS, and the privacy policy's own words transfer EEA and UK personal information to the United States under Standard Contractual Clauses. We found no public information on EU data residency options, a European entity or a public DPA, so what is on offer here is compliance paperwork over a US company on US cloud. 2 3
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 learning surface is deep and current: a knowledge base, product videos, a Training Academy, weekly 30-minute live demos, a status page, and detailed guides covering imports, Teams setup and every report type. Email support is stated on multiple pages, and the Developer Center documentation is said to be updated regularly. We found no public information on chat support, response-time SLAs or a visible changelog, so I cannot take this to the top. 9 12 13
The Bootstrapper
A real learning surface exists: knowledge base, product videos, a Training Academy, weekly 30-minute live demos, a status page, and a Developer Center that is updated regularly, with email support and question submission. I found no public information on chat support, response times, or a changelog, so I can't call this surface excellent. 1 9 12 13
The Enterprise Architect
A knowledge base, product videos, a training academy, a weekly live demo with Q&A and email support form a real learning surface, and the developer center states its documentation is updated regularly. I found no public information on chat support, response-time service levels or a visible changelog, which is exactly what I would need published before committing two hundred seats. 1 9 12 13
The UX Purist
The learning surface is dense and current: a knowledge base with step-by-step guides for imports, reporting and the Teams setup, product videos, a Training Academy, a status page, a weekly 30-minute live demo, and a Developer Center that is updated regularly — the software explains itself well. I found no public information on chat support, response-time commitments, published SLAs or a visible changelog, so it stops just below the top band. 1 9 12 13
The Integrator
The learn center carries detailed step-by-step articles on import, reporting and Teams setup, a Training Academy with tutorials and walkthrough videos, a Developer Center that is updated regularly, a status page and weekly live demos with Q&A — the developer documentation in particular is what I wish every vendor shipped. I found no public information on chat support, response-time SLAs or a visible changelog, which is what separates this from the top band. 9 12 13
The Skeptic
The knowledge base, product videos, training academy, status page, weekly live demos and a developer center the vendor says is updated regularly form a deep learning surface, and email support is real. We found no public information on chat support, response-time commitments or a visible changelog, so a stuck user has no published promise of turnaround. 1 12 13
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
The only figure the captured pages put a number on is the Advanced Collaboration bundle at $5/user/month, purchasable in-app or through sales; we found no public information on the prices of the self-serve tiers, the billing periods, or tax treatment. The requirement to be on Business or Enterprise for integrations and Teams appears in help pages rather than a pricing page, so a buyer cannot determine the real payable cost before talking to anyone. 6 11
The Bootstrapper
The only prices I can verify anywhere are a free 30-day trial and a $5/user/month Advanced Collaboration bundle whose own description points buyers to "contact sales to learn more"; I found no public information on plan prices, billing periods, or tax treatment. The help documentation also states the integrations panel and Microsoft Teams can require a Business or Enterprise account — a cost-relevant gate a buyer meets mid-setup rather than on any pricing page. 6 8 11
The Enterprise Architect
The only figure on the captured pages is the Advanced Collaboration bundle at $5/user/month, purchased in-app or through sales; I found no public information on plan prices, billing periods, seat minimums or tax treatment. Since the integrations panel and Microsoft Teams depend on being on a Business or Enterprise account whose prices are not shown, I cannot determine the payable cost for my team before talking to anyone. 6 11
The UX Purist
The only number a buyer can find unaided is an Advanced Collaboration bundle at $5/user/month; the captured pages publish no prices for the plans themselves, while help pages reveal that the Integrations panel and the Teams integration require a Business or Enterprise account — a deciding factor that surfaces in support documentation rather than on a pricing page. A free 30-day trial is public, but the payable cost of any tier is not, and I found no public information on seat minimums, billing-period differences or tax treatment. 6 11
The Integrator
The captured pages show exactly one concrete number — the Advanced Collaboration bundle at $5/user/month, purchasable in-app or via sales — plus a free 30-day trial, but I found no public information on prices for the plan tiers themselves. Plan names surface only through gating notes such as needing a Business or Enterprise account for the Teams integration, and some editions require an upgrade just to reach the Integrations panel — deciding costs that appear only after you are inside the product. 6 11
The Skeptic
We found no public information on what any plan costs, so the number a buyer needs before talking to anyone is not on the captured pages. The only figure surfaced anywhere is an "Advanced Collaboration bundle" at $5/user/month, disclosed inside a setup guide, while support pages say integrations and Microsoft Teams may require an edition upgrade to Business or Enterprise — a pattern where the real bill stays unknowable until a sales conversation. 6 11
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about ProjectManager
Is ProjectManager European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where ProjectManager is based.
Where does ProjectManager store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does ProjectManager have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to ProjectManager?
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: ProjectManager 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.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 12 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 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 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
- 1 data 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 hosting 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 pricing 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 subprocessors 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap learn.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap developer.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reporting — found from sitemap www.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reporting — found from sitemap learn.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations — found from sitemap www.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations — found from sitemap learn.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap learn.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap learn.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.projectmanager.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →