Project Management & Collaboration
Taskworld
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Taskworld Inc. · taskworld.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.
Taskworld at a glance
- Vendor
- Taskworld Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Taskworld 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Taskworld's captured documentation shows a workable project-management core. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Taskworld's captured documentation shows a workable project-management core. Integrations is the most consistent strength at a uniform 6 — a documented public API, the common Slack, MS Teams, GitHub, calendar and file-storage set, and genuine Trello JSON and CSV import paths. Collaboration depth and reporting cluster at 5-6, and support documentation sits at a uniform 5: judges credited the workload view's configurable capacity math (task counts or points, red overload bubbles) and templates with selectable elements, while noting the documented workload report is personal, reporting is fixed-format with exports routed through Google Sheets, and imports sit behind workspace-admin rights. Onboarding effort spans 5 to 7, the widest spread, split over how heavily to weigh an unverifiable signup and trial flow. Sovereignty is the clear weak point at 0-1: no sovereignty attributes are on record, and judges found no public information on data residency, a data-processing agreement or subprocessors. No meaningful disagreement was computed on any criterion. No prices are published — normal in this B2B market — and pricing transparency scores are excluded from the weighted verdicts.
Speaks for it
- A documented public API plus Slack, MS Teams, GitHub, calendar and file-storage integrations, with genuine Trello JSON and CSV import paths
- Workload capacity is configurable — calculated by task count or points, with per-period maximums and a bubble that turns red on overload
- Templates let you choose which elements to include, default projects to private with invites before creation, and copy into other workspaces
- Reporting covers a project overview table, tasklist completion and overdue percentages, a performance dashboard and a workload report with CSV export
- Step-by-step help center articles in English and German cover comments, analytics, workload, templates and imports, plus a five-article Day-1 Academy collection
Held against it
- No sovereignty attributes are on record — we found no public information on data residency, a data-processing agreement or subprocessors
- The documented cross-project workload view is a personal "My Workload" report, and we found no public information on task dependencies, shared timelines or guest and client access
- Reporting is fixed-format — we found no public information on time, budget or utilization reporting or a custom report builder, and Excel/PDF export routes through Google Sheets
- We found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform support, and new integrations are requested by email rather than browsed from a catalogue
- Imports sit behind workspace-admin rights, and we found no public information on the signup flow, trial terms or whether payment details are required
Best for
- You are moving existing work off Trello or out of CSV files — the Trello JSON upload wizard and CSV importers, plus a template library, shorten the path to a first real project
- Your team already runs on Slack, MS Teams, GitHub, Google Calendar or Google Drive and you want a documented public API alongside the natives
- You need per-person capacity planning by task count or points, with configurable daily, weekly or monthly maximums and overload warnings
- Your reporting needs are fixed progress views — completion, overdue and per-tasklist breakdowns — with CSV export
Avoid if
- You must verify data residency, a data-processing agreement or a subprocessor list before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need team-level planning at department scale — the documented cross-project workload view is a personal report, and we found no public information on task dependencies, shared timelines or guest and client access
- You need time, budget or utilization reporting or a custom report builder — the documented analytics are fixed-format and export to Excel or PDF through Google Sheets
- You depend on webhooks or automation platforms — we found no public information on either, the native catalogue runs roughly ten entries, and additions are requested by email
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Collaboration depth | 3 of 5 |
| Reporting | 2.5 of 5 |
| Integrations | 3 of 5 |
| Onboarding effort | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Support & documentation | 2.5 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
Shared projects carry assignments, comments with mentions from both email and mobile, and a workload view counting assigned tasks or points per person with configurable capacity and an overload indicator. The workload report reads as a personal cross-project view rather than a team planning board, and we found no public information on dependencies, shared timelines, or guest and client access. 1 2 4 7
The Bootstrapper
Assignments, comments with mentions, and commenting on tasks by email are documented, and the workload view is a real capacity surface with configurable per-person maximums, a red overload indicator, and points split across days and assignees. It is framed as a personal "My Workload" view though, and we found no public information on dependencies or guest and client access, so team-level planning is only partly evidenced. 1 2 4 7
The Enterprise Architect
Comments with mentions, email-to-task commenting and mobile commenting carry real team interaction, and the workload view with configurable capacity and overload cues is genuine planning — but the captured pages show only a personal "My Workload" report and give no evidence of shared timelines, dependencies or guest and client access. 1 2 4 7
The UX Purist
Comments run deep — mentions, mobile, even comment-by-email — and the workload view does real capacity math with configurable task-count or point limits and a red overload bubble, which is genuine team-level planning. But I found no public information on task dependencies or guest/client access, and the only cross-project view I found is a personal "My Workload" report; a solid shared-planning core with the seams showing at department scale. 1 2 4 7
The Integrator
Comments run deep — mentions, mobile comments and a special email ID that pipes email replies straight into the task — and the workload feature does real capacity math (task count or points, configurable daily/weekly/monthly caps, red overload bubbles) across projects, with project-level permission settings on templates. The workload report is framed as personal ("My Workload"), and I found no public information on task dependencies or guest/client access, so this lands between solid shared projects and first-class team planning. 1 2 4 7
The Skeptic
Assignments, comments with mentions, and a genuinely configurable capacity view — per-person task or point maximums with a red overload warning and points split across days and assignees — are documented in step-by-step detail. But the documented cross-project view is a personal workload report, and we found no public information on task dependencies, shared timelines, or guest and client access. 1 2 4 7
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
Standard project analytics — a project overview table, per-tasklist completion and overdue percentages, and a task performance dashboard — plus a workload report in daily, weekly or monthly form with CSV export answer the basic progress question. We found no public information on time tracking, budgets, utilization depth, or configurable cross-project dashboards and scheduled delivery. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
Project analytics gives a progress snapshot, a tasklist breakdown and a performance dashboard, the workload report aggregates across chosen projects with a CSV export, and analytics flow into Google Sheets for xlsx or PDF download. We found no public information on time tracking, budgets, or a custom report builder, so this sits above standard reports but well short of configurable cross-project depth. 3 4
The Enterprise Architect
Project analytics covering completion, overdue and per-tasklist breakdown, plus a workload report with CSV export and a Google Sheets path to Excel and PDF, answers the standard progress questions. Nothing in the captured pages evidences time, budget or utilization reporting, a custom report builder or scheduled delivery. 3 4
The UX Purist
Project analytics gives fixed but useful views — a Project Overview table, Tasklist Overview chart, Performance Dashboard — and the workload report aggregates across projects with an editable project list, daily/weekly/monthly timelines and CSV export. I found no public information on time, budget or utilization reporting, and the report is a static snapshot frozen at generation time; exporting via Google Sheets to Excel or PDF is a roundabout path. 3 4
The Integrator
Standard analytics are real — a project overview snapshot, tasklist completion percentages, a performance dashboard, and a workload report with editable project selection that exports to CSV — plus Google Sheets export to Excel or PDF. Everything is fixed-format and per-project or personal in scope: I found no public information on time tracking, budgets, utilization depth, a custom report builder or API access to the metrics. 3 4
The Skeptic
There are useful fixed charts (project overview, tasklist completion and overdue percentages, a task performance dashboard) plus a workload report with real filters — project selection, an unassigned-tasks toggle, task-count-versus-points — and CSV export. We found no public information on time or budget reporting or any custom report builder, and the analytics export runs through a Google Sheets detour rather than a native path. 3 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
The catalogue covers the common set — iCal and Google Calendar, Google Meet, Google Drive, Box and Dropbox — alongside Slack, MS Teams and Github and a documented public API, and there are genuine import paths from Trello and CSV as well as export via Google Sheets to Excel or PDF. We found no public information on webhooks or automation platforms, which keeps this short of the top band. 3 5 8
The Bootstrapper
The common set is present — Google Drive, Box, Dropbox, Google Calendar, iCal, Slack, MS Teams and GitHub — plus a documented public API and genuine import paths from Trello via JSON upload and from CSV. We found no public information on webhooks, automation-platform support, or how much of the product the API covers, and new integrations are requested by email. 3 5 8
The Enterprise Architect
The native catalogue covers Slack, MS Teams, Github, both calendar routes and three file-storage providers, on top of a documented public API and genuine Trello and CSV import paths. We found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform support, and API coverage breadth is not shown. 3 5 8
The UX Purist
The common set is covered — Google Calendar and iCal, Slack and MS Teams, Google Drive/Dropbox/Box, GitHub — beside a documented public API and genuine import paths from Trello and CSV. I found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform support, and requesting a new integration means emailing support, which caps this short of a broad catalogue. 3 5 8
The Integrator
The stack-friendliness is genuine: a documented public API, Slack/MS Teams/GitHub hooks, the calendar and file-storage natives, CSV import for projects and tasks, and a proper Trello JSON importer — a real exit/entry path rather than a dead end. What holds it back is that I found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform (Zapier/Make-class) support, and additional integrations are requested by email rather than browsed from a catalogue. 3 5 8
The Skeptic
A documented public API, the expected calendar, Slack, MS Teams and file-storage set, and honest migration paths (Trello JSON upload, project and task CSV import, workspace-admin gated) are all evidenced. We found no public information on webhooks or automation-platform support, the native catalogue shown is roughly ten entries, and anything not listed is routed to a request email address. 3 5 8
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
Templates with selectable elements and cross-workspace reuse, plus importers that pull existing work in from Trello and CSV, shorten the path to a first real project, though imports sit behind workspace-admin rights. We found no public information on self-serve signup, guided setup, trial terms, or whether payment details are required to start. 7 8 9
The Bootstrapper
Templates with selectable elements, a template library, and Trello and CSV importers give a newcomer a plausible fast path to a first real project, and the Academy bills itself as "Everything you need to know on Day 1". We found no public information on the signup flow, trial terms, or whether payment details are required, so the friction at the door cannot be judged from these pages. 7 8 9
The Enterprise Architect
A template library with element selection, private-by-default permissions and CSV/Trello importers can pull existing work in, which shortens time to value. Importing sits behind workspace admin rights and every key step lives in help articles; we found no public information on self-serve signup, trial terms or guided setup. 7 8
The UX Purist
Templates with sensible defaults — private by default, invite-before-create, pick which elements to include — plus a Trello import wizard and CSV import mean a newcomer starts from something rather than an empty screen. I found no public information on trial terms or any guided in-app setup, which is what separates this from verified first-value-in-an-hour territory. 7 8 9
The Integrator
A template library with selectable elements and cross-workspace deployment, CSV and Trello importers, and a Day-1 Academy collection mean existing work can be pulled in and sensible defaults exist from the first project. However, imports live behind workspace admin settings, and I found no public information on the trial (length or payment details) or any guided setup flow, so the signup-to-value picture stays incomplete. 7 8 9
The Skeptic
Templates with selectable elements and a cross-workspace target, private-by-default projects with invites before creation, and a Trello import wizard give a newcomer a fast, low-config start. We found no public information on the signup flow, trial terms, or whether payment details are required, so the friction question cannot be verified from what is public. 7 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
We found no public information on where customer data is hosted, on a data processing agreement, on GDPR commitments, on subprocessors, or on deletion guarantees — for a European deployment that silence is disqualifying as it stands, because the buyer cannot verify where the data lives. A tool that cannot answer the residency question at the documentation level does not pass review under my mandate. 5 9
The Bootstrapper
We found no public information on the vendor's legal entity or ownership, data residency, a data processing agreement, or the subprocessor list; none of the captured pages address where the company or the data sit. Nothing here can be verified by a buyer with European sovereignty requirements. 5 9
The Enterprise Architect
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured surface gives no public information on the legal entity's seat, ownership control, data residency, a DPA or any subprocessor list. For a two-hundred-seat procurement nothing here is verifiable, and unasserted is not audited. 5 9
The UX Purist
We found no public information on where the company is domiciled, where data is hosted, or any DPA, residency commitment or subprocessor list among the captured pages. Nothing on record lets me credit even baseline compliance paperwork. 5
The Integrator
We found no public information on the vendor's legal seat, ownership structure, data residency, a data-processing agreement or subprocessors in any captured page; the German-language integration article is the only European footprint on record, and localization says nothing about where the company or the data sit. Nothing on record evidences European control or EU-resident data, so this scores at the bottom of the scale. 5
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record at all: we found no public information on the legal entity's location, ownership, data residency, a DPA, or subprocessors anywhere in the captured pages. Nothing in this dimension is verifiable, and unverifiable is worthless to a buyer with residency obligations, so I score near the floor rather than award benefit of the doubt. 5 9
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 walks through core mechanics step by step in English and German, and a compact Academy collection frames Day 1 basics, with a support email address published for integration requests. We found no public information on chat availability, response times, SLAs, a visible changelog, or how support varies by plan. 5 9
The Bootstrapper
A searchable help center covers the core product with step-by-step articles on comments, analytics, workload, templates and integrations in English and German, and there is an Academy collection of five day-one articles plus an email support address. We found no public information on chat support, response times, service levels, or a changelog. 1 3 5 9
The Enterprise Architect
The help center carries detailed step-by-step articles across comments, analytics, workload, integrations, templates and import, and a support address is published for integration requests. The Academy collection counts five articles, and we found no public information on chat availability, response times, plan gating or SLAs. 2 5 9
The UX Purist
The help center has real step-by-step how-tos across comments, analytics, workload, templates and imports, and the Academy collection bills itself as "Everything you need to know on Day 1" — but it is five articles. We found no public information on chat support, response times, SLAs or a changelog; an email address for integration requests is the only support surface evidenced. 5 9
The Integrator
The help center is real and walks core workflows step-by-step — comments, analytics, workload, templates, imports — organized into collections, backed by a five-article "Everything you need to know on Day 1" Academy and a support email address. I found no public information on chat support, response times, SLAs, plan-based gating of support or a changelog, so this reads as a solid mid-tier learning surface rather than a standout. 5 6 9
The Skeptic
The help center carries detailed, bilingual step-by-step articles across comments, analytics, workload, templates and import, and a support email address is published for integration requests. We found no public information on chat availability, response times, plan-level gating of support, SLAs, or a changelog, and the Academy collection runs to just five articles. 1 5 9
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
We found no public information on any tier price, billing period, seat minimum, or tax treatment, so a buyer cannot determine the real payable cost for their team before talking to the vendor. Every number would have to come through a sales conversation, which is the weakest posture available on pricing transparency. 9
The Bootstrapper
We found no public information on any tier, price, billing period, seat minimum or tax treatment in the captured pages. As someone paying their own card for three seats and thirty, I cannot determine the payable cost before talking to the vendor from this evidence. 5 9
The Enterprise Architect
We found no public pricing information at all — no tiers, no per-seat numbers, no billing-period or tax treatment. The real cost of two hundred seats cannot be determined before talking to the vendor. 9
The UX Purist
Across the captured pages we found no public information on pricing — no tiers, no per-seat numbers, no billing-period or tax treatment. A buyer cannot determine the payable cost from anything captured here. 5 7
The Integrator
No captured page shows tier names, prices, billing periods or tax treatment — I found no public pricing information at all, including on the help-center and Academy surfaces. A buyer cannot determine any payable cost for their team from the public record before making contact. 9
Questions about Taskworld
Is Taskworld European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Taskworld is based.
Where does Taskworld store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Taskworld have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Taskworld?
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: Taskworld alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (help.taskworld.com/en/articles/4841915-add-task-comments-mobile-app, help.taskworld.com/en/articles/4841785-commenting-on-a-task-by-email, help.taskworld.com/en/articles/4841869-project-analytics, help.taskworld.com/en/articles/5615738-reviewing-downloading-your-workload-report, help.taskworld.com/de-form/articles/4841756-liste-der-integrationen, help.taskworld.com/en/collections/3393704-reporting-integrations and 3 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (help.taskworld.com/en/articles/4841915-add-task-comments-mobile-app, help.taskworld.com/en/articles/4841785-commenting-on-a-task-by-email, help.taskworld.com/en/articles/4841869-project-analytics, help.taskworld.com/en/articles/5615738-reviewing-downloading-your-workload-report, help.taskworld.com/de-form/articles/4841756-liste-der-integrationen, help.taskworld.com/en/collections/3393704-reporting-integrations and 3 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 8 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
- 6 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
- 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Reporting — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Reporting — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Integrations — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Support & documentation — found from sitemap help.taskworld.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →