Project Management & Collaboration
Projectplace
EU origin, foreign-owned Report an errorPanel 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 Planview, Inc. · www.planview.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
Projectplace, the Stockholm-founded project management and collaboration tool owned by US-based Planview since 2014, earns its best scores on support documentation (6 to 8) and integrations (5 to 6): sixteen named integrations cover the major document stores, Microsoft Teams, Slack and Power BI, with automation through both Zapier and Power Automate, while the learning surface spans a knowledge base, the University of Planview, instructor-led classes and certification. Collaboration depth (5 to 7) rests on boards spanning a team's projects, Gantt charts and a workload view across every workspace, though we found no public information on guest access, comments, dependencies or permissions. Reporting is the flat column — 4 — since answers run through the Power BI connector rather than native dashboards. Sovereignty sits at 2 to 3: EU storage follows the customer's region rather than a customer choice, with US and Australian regions used for other customers, and we found no public information on legal entity jurisdiction, ownership or subprocessors. Only the 30-day trial is priced publicly, with no credit card required.
Speaks for it
- Sixteen named integrations covering major document stores, Microsoft Teams, Slack and Power BI, plus automation via Zapier and Power Automate.
- Deep enablement surface — knowledge base, University of Planview, instructor-led classes and certification (support documentation 6 to 8).
- Team-level planning evidenced in boards spanning a team's projects, Gantt charts and a workload view across all workspaces.
- 30-day free trial with no obligation or credit card required.
Held against it
- Reporting evidence runs through the Power BI connector, and we found no public information on native dashboards, budgets, utilization or export formats.
- Sovereignty scores 2 to 3: EU storage is tied to the customer's region rather than offered as a choice, with US and Australian regions used for other customers.
- No public information on guest or client access, comments, dependencies or the permission model beneath the shared views.
- No public information on a documented public API, webhooks or import paths from competing tools, which caps stack wiring and migration.
- No public pricing beyond the trial; tier prices, billing periods and seat minimums all require a sales conversation (pricing transparency 0 to 2).
Best for
- You need kanban boards spanning all of a team's projects, Gantt charts and cross-workspace workload views.
- Your stack leans on document stores, Microsoft Teams and Slack, and you automate with Zapier or Power Automate.
- You put weight on rollout enablement — self-paced e-learning, instructor-led classes and certification.
Avoid if
- Your stakeholders need in-product dashboards or budget and utilization reporting; the evidenced path sends account and workspace data into Microsoft Power BI, an external tool.
- Your procurement requires contractually chosen EU residency or a published subprocessor list; EU storage here is tied to the customer's region, with US and Australian regions serving other customers.
- You must know seat prices and billing terms before a sales conversation; only the 30-day trial terms are public.
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
Boards and modernized Gantt charts are shown for shared team work, and the workload view across all workspaces gives a real cross-project capacity picture, which is more than a personal list. We found no public information on dependencies, guest or client access, or permissions, so the deeper team-level planning model stays unevidenced. 1 4
The Bootstrapper
Boards that visualize work "across all your team's projects and commitments" plus a workload view across all workspaces show genuine team-level planning, and Gantt charts cover the scheduling side. We found no public information on guest or client access, in-product comments, or permission controls, which is what separates a solid shared workspace from first-class team planning. 1 4
The Enterprise Architect
Team-level planning is evidenced: workload across all workspaces and boards spanning all of a team's projects, alongside Gantt charts for the plan. I found no public information on guest or client access, dependencies, or comment threads, which is what I would need to see before putting 200 seats on it. 1 4
The UX Purist
Boards that span all the team's projects, Gantt planning and a workload view across every workspace put team-level planning front and center. But we found no public information on assignments, comments, dependencies or guest/client access, so the multi-person workflow underneath those views stays invisible to a buyer. 1 4
The Integrator
Kanban flow across all the team's projects, Gantt planning and a workload view spanning every workspace are all evidenced, which covers cross-project and capacity planning. We found no public information on dependencies, guest or client access, or comment and permission depth, so I cannot credit a full team-level model. 1
The Skeptic
Kanban boards spanning all of a team's projects, Gantt charts, and a workload view across every workspace are genuine team-level planning, with Teams and Slack carrying the people side. But we found no public information on comments, guest or client access, or the permission model — the buyer cannot see whether outsiders fit in at all. That lands between solid shared projects and first-class team planning. 1 4
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
Reporting appears mainly as a connector: the Power BI integration visualizes account and workspace data for stakeholder reports, and Gantt views cover progress. We found no public information on native dashboards, budgets, utilization, or export formats, so the product's own reporting surface beyond the board view cannot be judged. 1 4
The Bootstrapper
Progress is visible in Gantt charts, and a Power BI connector is offered to visualize account and workspace data for stakeholder reporting, with budget tracking appearing only through a sibling Planview product. We found no public information on an in-product report builder, dashboards, or export formats. 1 4
The Enterprise Architect
Cross-project reporting runs through an external Power BI connector drawing on the account and workspaces, with Gantt and workload views covering progress and load. We found no public information on native dashboards, export formats, or budget and utilization reporting inside the product itself; budget tracking surfaces only through the sibling Planview PPM Pro mapping. 4 1
The UX Purist
The only evidenced reporting path sends data into Power BI, alongside workload and Gantt views inside the product. We found no public information on native dashboards, budgets, tracked time or export formats, so the tool's own answers about the work go largely unshown. 1 4
The Integrator
Reporting leans on an external connector: the Power BI integration visualizes account and workspace data, and Gantt charts carry per-project progress. We found no public information on native dashboards, budget or utilization reporting, scheduled delivery, or export formats, so the answers live in another vendor's tool. 1 4
The Skeptic
Progress shows up in Gantt and board views, and the only evidenced analytics path is pushing account and workspace data into Microsoft Power BI — the reporting lives in another vendor's product. We found no public information on native reports, budget or utilization reporting, filters, or export formats. 1 4
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
A broad native catalogue is documented — document storage (Box, Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, SharePoint), Slack, Microsoft Teams, Outlook, DocuSign, Power BI, plus both Zapier and Power Automate for automation. We found no public information on a public API or webhooks, which is what would move this from a good catalogue to an open ecosystem. 4 1
The Bootstrapper
A real native catalogue — Slack, Microsoft Teams, Outlook, the major file stores, DocuSign, SharePoint — plus automation through both Zapier and Power Automate covers the common set and more. We found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, or import paths from competing tools, which is what I would need to grow from three seats to thirty without re-entering everything. 1 4
The Enterprise Architect
The native catalogue is broad — document management across Box, Dropbox, Google and Microsoft, automation via Zapier and Power Automate, reporting via Power BI, plus Slack and Teams, and connections into the wider Planview portfolio. We found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, or import paths from competing tools, which caps both automation planning and a clean exit. 4 1
The UX Purist
A broad native catalogue — every major file store, Slack and Teams, Outlook, Power BI — plus first-class Zapier and Power Automate support covers the stack well. We found no public information on a public API, webhooks or import paths from competing tools, which keeps it short of the top band. 1 4
The Integrator
The native catalogue is genuinely broad — document stores including Box, Dropbox and SharePoint, Teams and Slack, Outlook-to-task, plus both Zapier and Power Automate for automation, which is my minimum bar. But we found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, or import paths from competitors — for wiring a tool into a stack, that is the deciding gap. 1 4
The Skeptic
Sixteen named integrations — seven document-management connectors plus Teams, Slack, DocuSign, Power BI, and both Zapier and Power Automate — is a genuinely broad catalogue. But we found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, or import paths from competing tools, so the connector list may be the whole story. 4 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
The entry path is friendly: a 30-day free trial with no obligation and no credit card required, which removes the worst signup friction. We found no public information on guided setup, templates, or importers for existing work, so I cannot confirm a newcomer reaches a working project quickly rather than merely reaching a signup screen. 4 1
The Bootstrapper
The self-serve path starts well: a 30-day trial with no credit card and no obligation. But the captured pages say nothing about guided setup, templates, or importers that pull existing work in, so I cannot credit the signup-to-working-project-in-an-hour experience. 1 4
The Enterprise Architect
A 30-day trial with no obligation or credit card required is genuinely low-friction entry. We found no public information on guided setup, templates, or importers, so I cannot judge how quickly a team reaches a working project without paid services. 4 1
The UX Purist
A 30-day trial with "no obligation or credit card required" removes the signup gate entirely, and that is the whole of the evidence. We found no public information on guided setup, templates or importers, so nothing tells a newcomer how fast a first project gets moving after signup. 1 4
The Integrator
The trial is frictionless — thirty days with "No obligation or credit card required" — so the signup step costs nothing. We found no public information on templates, guided setup, or importers to pull existing projects in, so I cannot credit the signup-to-working-project-in-an-hour path. 1 4
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
This is my core test, and it turns on control: the Stockholm product now sits under Planview, a US company, and the privacy statement places EMEA customer data in the EU only as a region-dependent arrangement, not as a choice or a contractual residency commitment. A Data Privacy Officer is appointed and DSARs run through a portal, but the captured pages leave legal entity jurisdiction, ownership and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed, and I found no public information on deletion guarantees or a subprocessor list — for a European buyer, that is compliance machinery without an answer to where the data lives and who can be compelled for it. 3 6
The Bootstrapper
Projectplace was born in Stockholm but has belonged to US-based Planview since 2014, and the published GDPR machinery — an appointed Data Privacy Officer and a DSAR portal — is compliance paperwork rather than European substance. EU data storage applies to EMEA customers by region rather than as a customer choice, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list. 3 5 6
The Enterprise Architect
Ownership sits with the US acquirer since 2014, and EU data storage follows the customer's region rather than being a contractual choice, with US and Australian regions in equal use for other customers. Beyond a DPO contact and a DSAR portal, we found no public information on a DPA, a subprocessor list, certifications, or the operating legal entity's jurisdiction — this does not survive a sovereignty requirement in procurement. 3 2 5 6
The UX Purist
A Stockholm product line founded in 1998 now sits under a US parent, and data residency follows the customer's region rather than a contractually fixed EU home, with US and Australian regions used for other customers. We found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, ownership details or subprocessor exposure; what is shown is a privacy statement, an appointed Data Privacy Officer and a DSAR portal — paperwork rather than substance. 2 3 6
The Integrator
The Stockholm origin ends in 2014 with acquisition by Planview, a US company, and the captured privacy statement ties EU storage to the customer's region rather than offering it as a customer choice, with US and Australian regions equally in use. A DPO and a DSAR portal are in place, but we found no public information on subprocessor exposure or contractually fixed EU residency. 3 6
The Skeptic
The Stockholm-born product has belonged to US-based Planview since 2014, and EU data storage arrives only as a side-effect of being an EMEA customer, with US and Australian regions serving others. A Data Privacy Officer and a DSAR portal are compliance hygiene, not substance; we found no public information confirming the legal entity's jurisdiction, controlling ownership, or the subprocessor list. 3 6
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 genuinely strong: a knowledge base with how-to guides, on-demand self-paced learning, the University of Planview, instructor-led classes and a certification program. What I cannot see is the day-to-day experience — we found no public information on response times, published SLAs, or which support channels come with which plan, while Enterprise and Premier tiers bundle faster responses and a Technical Account Manager, which reads as premium gating. 5 6
The Bootstrapper
The learning surface is serious: knowledge base articles, how-to guides, troubleshooting workflows, on-demand e-learning through the University of Planview, instructor-led classes, and certification programs. But faster responses and a Technical Account Manager sit in Enterprise or Premier Support tiers, and we found no public information on chat support by plan, response-time commitments, or a changelog. 5 6
The Enterprise Architect
The learning surface is unusually deep: University of Planview as a learning management system, on-demand and instructor-led training in both virtual and in-person formats, badging and certification, plus a knowledge base, case tracking, and Technical Account Manager options at higher support tiers. We found no published response-time commitments and no public information on chat availability per plan or a changelog, which keeps it out of the top band. 5 6
The UX Purist
This is the strongest surface: University of Planview, self-paced learning, instructor-led classes and certification sit on top of a knowledge base, how-tos, case tracking and support engineers. Quicker responses and a Technical Account Manager live in Enterprise or Premier tiers, and we found no public information on published response-time commitments or a changelog. 5 6
The Integrator
The learning surface is deep: knowledge base with how-tos and troubleshooting workflows, on-demand learning, instructor-led classes, and a University of Planview learning system with certifications. We found no public information on chat availability by plan, published response-time commitments, or a changelog, which keeps it short of the top band. 5 6
The Skeptic
The learning surface is unusually deep — knowledge base articles, how-to guides, self-paced e-learning, instructor-led classes, a certification program and a learning platform — which is more than a help center. But prioritized case handling, faster responses and a Technical Account Manager sit in Enterprise or Premier tiers, and we found no public information on response times for entry plans, chat support, or a visible changelog. 5 6
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 only cost fact on the captured pages is the trial: free for 30 days, no obligation and no credit card required. We found no public information on any payable tier price, billing period, seat minimums, or tax treatment, so a buyer cannot determine the real cost of this tool before talking to the vendor. 4 1
The Bootstrapper
The only cost information anywhere is "Try ProjectPlace free for 30 days No obligation or credit card required" — not a single tier, seat price, or billing term is published. I pay with my own card and cannot tell what three seats or thirty seats cost without a sales conversation, which for me ends the evaluation. 1 4
The Enterprise Architect
Only the trial terms are public — 30 days, no credit card. We found no public pricing for any tier, seat minimums, or billing-period differences, so a buyer cannot estimate the payable cost for their team before talking to sales. 1 4
The UX Purist
The only public number on the captured pages is "free for 30 days" without a credit card. We found no public information on plan prices, billing periods or tax treatment for any tier, so a buyer cannot determine the payable cost before talking to the vendor. 1 4
The Integrator
The only pricing information on the captured pages is the trial: "Try ProjectPlace free for 30 days No obligation or credit card required". We found no public information on any paid tier, seat price, billing period, or tax treatment, so a buyer cannot determine a payable cost before contacting sales. 1 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 optional ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited 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. EU storage is not offered as a customer choice but tied to the customer's region (EMEA), and US and Australian regions are equally used for other customers, so the finding is region-dependent.
- 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.
- 17 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
- 11 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
- 9 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
- 5 support 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
- 4 data 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
- 4 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
- 2 hosting 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
Sources (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor product page www.planview.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice www.planview.com Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.planview.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Integrations — found from sitemap www.planview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.planview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.planview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →