Project Management & Collaboration
TeamGantt
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by TeamGantt · www.teamgantt.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
TeamGantt is a Gantt-chart planning tool, and the bench's strongest scores land on collaboration depth, at 6 to 7: the captured page shows task assignments, dependencies, milestones, Gantt, board, list and calendar views synced in real time, built-in workload management, and guest access for teammates, clients and subcontractors to view or collaborate on the live schedule. Its weakest areas are integrations, 0 to 2, and sovereignty, 0 to 1: the page gives no public information on an API, webhooks, native integrations or import and export paths, and no sovereignty attributes are on record. Reporting scores 3 to 4 for per-project baselines, critical path and project health, plus cost forecasting in the Builder Edition (construction), with no public information on cross-project aggregation, time tracking or exports. Onboarding effort scores 5 to 7 on templates and an AI Gantt Chart Maker, tempered by a 14-day full-feature trial requiring a credit card. Support documentation is flat at 4. Ranges are tight and no judge disagreements were flagged. One price is public: $1,908/year for a Builder Edition plan with all 15 people included.
Speaks for it
- Collaboration depth scores 6 to 7, the bench's best range, on assignments, dependencies and a live schedule that clients and subcontractors can view or collaborate on
- Gantt, board, list and calendar views are synced in real time
- Built-in workload management shows capacity and availability
- Onboarding effort scores 5 to 7, backed by templates, drag-and-drop building, an AI Gantt Chart Maker and a no-training-required claim
- A free Gantt chart generator is offered
Held against it
- Integrations score 0 to 2; we found no public information on an API, webhooks, native integrations or import and export paths
- Sovereignty scores 0 to 1 with no sovereignty attributes on record — we found no public information on data residency, a DPA or a subprocessor list
- Reporting scores 3 to 4, limited to per-project signals; we found no public information on cross-project aggregation, time tracking or exports
- The 14-day full-feature trial requires a credit card
- We found no public information on cross-project or portfolio views, task comments, or guest permission granularity beyond view-or-collaborate
Best for
- You run one project team on a Gantt chart and need a live schedule that clients and subcontractors can view or collaborate on
- Your team wants a fast first chart without training
- You plan construction work and want lookahead planning and cost forecasting in the Builder Edition (construction)
- You assign work across people and need capacity and availability visibility to prevent overload
Avoid if
- You need cross-project dashboards, time tracking or exportable reports; reporting scores run 3 to 4 with only per-project signals evidenced
- You want to try the full product before providing payment details; the 14-day full-feature trial requires a credit card
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
The captured page shows assignments, dependencies, guest and client access for teammates and subcontractors, and built-in workload management with capacity visibility — real team-level planning. I found no public information on cross-project views or on how guest permissions are bounded, so I cannot confirm the top of the range. 1
The Bootstrapper
Real multi-person planning is on the page: dependencies, milestones, four synced views, built-in workload management, and guest access for clients and subcontractors to view or collaborate on the live schedule. We found no public information on cross-project portfolio views or task comments, which is what keeps this below the top band. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Shared planning is demonstrably real: drag-and-drop Gantt charts with dependencies and milestones, owner assignments across Gantt, board, list and calendar views, built-in workload and capacity management, and guest access for clients and subcontractors. I found no public information on cross-project or portfolio views, comment threads, or guest permission granularity, which is exactly what I would need to see before committing two hundred seats. 1
The UX Purist
Assignments, dependencies, a shared live timeline and built-in workload management sit right on the homepage, and clients and subcontractors can view or collaborate on the live schedule — that is most of a team planning surface. We found no public information on comments or cross-project views, though, and view-or-collaborate is the entire permissions story, which stops it short of first-class team planning. 1
The Integrator
Teammates, clients and subcontractors can view or collaborate on the live schedule, tasks carry owners with dependencies and milestones, and built-in workload management with capacity and availability visibility is real team-level planning. We found no public information on cross-project or portfolio views, and guest permissions are evidenced only as view-or-collaborate without finer granularity. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor page does claim assignments, dependencies, workload and capacity tools, and guest access for clients and subcontractors, which is a real chunk of team-level planning. But it's one marketing page: no cross-project or portfolio view is mentioned, and I found no public information on comments or permission granularity, so I'm not crediting the rest on faith. 1
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
Per-project risk signals are evidenced — baselines, critical path, project health — plus cost forecasting in the construction edition, which goes slightly beyond board-watching. I found no public information on cross-project aggregation, exports, time tracking or utilization reporting. 1
The Bootstrapper
Baselines, critical path, and project health give per-project status, and Builder Edition adds cost forecasting for construction schedules. We found no public information on cross-project reports, time or utilization reporting, or any export path, so this sits at the fixed status-view level. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Baselines, critical path and project health give per-project risk monitoring alongside capacity visibility. I found no public information on cross-project reports, dashboards, time or budget reporting, or any export path, and without a documented export or audit story this would not clear my reporting requirements. 1
The UX Purist
Project health, baselines, critical path and Builder Edition cost forecasting answer per-project questions, which is more than a bare board. We found no public information on time tracking, cross-project aggregation, or any export path, so I cannot verify the answer ever leaves the tool. 1
The Integrator
Baselines, critical path and project health give per-project schedule answers, and the Builder Edition adds cost forecasting. We found no public information on cross-project aggregation, tracked time, budgets beyond that one edition, or any export path — and an answer I cannot take out of the tool is only half an answer. 1
The Skeptic
Everything evidenced is per-project — baselines, critical path, project health — with construction cost forecasting as the only budget-flavored item. I found no public information on time tracking, utilization, cross-project dashboards, or any export path, so this sits at fixed per-project status views. 1
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
I found no public information on an API, native integrations, webhooks, or import and export paths; the captured page is silent on every connection surface this criterion needs. 1
The Bootstrapper
Everything evidenced is native capability; we found no public information on integrations with calendar, Slack or Teams, a public API, webhooks, or import paths from other tools. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The captured page gives me no integration surface to evaluate: I found no public information on a public API, webhooks, native integrations, calendar or comms hooks, or import and export paths, and the AI Gantt Chart Maker is a content generator rather than a connector. For my stack this is unusable until proven otherwise, and there is no API-based exit path I can verify. 1
The UX Purist
The captured page shows one external surface — the AI chart maker — and we found no public information on any native integration, public API, webhook, calendar hook, or import path. A connectivity story that is absent from the vendor's own homepage leaves a buyer nothing to check. 1
The Integrator
The captured page is silent on everything I weigh first: we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, native integrations with calendar, chat or file storage, or import/export paths. The only inbound surface evidenced is the AI Gantt Chart Maker's prompt-to-schedule flow, which is a demo feature, not a stack connection. 1
The Skeptic
A homepage that can't name a single integration, API, webhook, calendar hook, or import path is telling. I found no public information on connectivity of any kind, so I'm scoring the silence — near the closed-box floor, with a point held back only because silence isn't proof. 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
Templates, drag-and-drop building, an AI Gantt Chart Maker and a 'no training required' message point to a fast first project. The 14-day trial requires a credit card, which keeps first value behind payment details. 1
The Bootstrapper
Templates, drag-and-drop building, an AI Gantt Chart Maker, a free Gantt chart generator, and a "No training required" claim all point to a fast first project. But the 14-day full-feature trial requires a credit card, and that payment detail at the door is exactly what caps this score. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Templates, drag-and-drop building and a prompt-driven AI chart maker point to a first project in minutes, backed by a stated 'No training required' claim and a free Gantt generator. The friction point is that the 14-day full-feature trial requires a credit card, so cardless entry depends on the free tier rather than a frictionless trial. 1
The UX Purist
Drag-and-drop building, templates and an AI chart maker that turns a quick prompt into a schedule promise minutes-to-first-chart, and the no-training-required pitch matches that. But the 14-day trial requires a credit card before any value appears, and we found no public information on importers pulling existing work in — my stopwatch starts at a payment form. 1
The Integrator
Drag-and-drop planning with templates and an AI chart maker point to a first project running fast, and the vendor states no training is required. But the 14-day full-feature trial requires a credit card, and we found no public information on guided setup or importers pulling existing work in. 1
The Skeptic
Templates, drag-and-drop, an AI chart maker and the vendor's own 'no training required' line back a fast start, and a free chart generator plus a full-feature 14-day trial exist. But that trial requires a credit card upfront — the classic tripwire — and I found no public information on guided setup or importers to pull existing work in. 1
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 disqualifier: no sovereignty attributes are on record, and I found no public information on data residency, hosting jurisdiction, a data processing agreement, or the subprocessor list. The captured pages do not answer where the data lives, and I treat an unanswerable location as the floor. 1
The Bootstrapper
We found no public information on where the company or its data sit — no data residency, no DPA, no subprocessor list on record. "100% customer-funded" tells me who they answer to, not where they or the data are located, so nothing here is verifiable for a European buyer. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Nothing is on record here: I found no public information on the vendor's legal entity or jurisdiction, data residency, a DPA, or subprocessors. The only governance signal is '100% customer-funded' ownership with no investors, which says nothing about where the company or the data sit, so an EU procurement review would have nothing to work with. 1
The UX Purist
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured pages give no public information on the vendor's legal seat, ownership control, data residency, DPA, or subprocessors. There is nothing here a European buyer can verify, which lands it at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Integrator
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on the vendor's legal entity, ownership jurisdiction, data residency, a DPA, or subprocessors. The customer-funded statement is a governance posture, not a jurisdiction, so nothing on this criterion is verifiable from the captured page. 1
The Skeptic
No entity location, no DPA, no data residency, no subprocessor list — not even GDPR boilerplate on the page. For a buyer who needs to know where their data actually sits, nothing here is verifiable, and I found no public information on any of it. 1
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
A help center with video tutorials and help docs is evidenced, which is a real learning surface. I found no public information on support channels, response times per plan, SLAs, or a changelog, so I cannot verify how a stuck user gets unstuck. 1
The Bootstrapper
A help center, help docs, and video tutorials are pointed to from the page, which is more than marketing copy. We found no public information on support channels per plan, response times, or a changelog, so I can't place this above the middle of the range. 1
The Enterprise Architect
A help center, help docs and video tutorials are referenced directly on the page, which covers the getting-unstuck basics. I found no public information on support channels per plan, response commitments, SLAs or a changelog, so I cannot confirm that a stuck production user reaches a human. 1
The UX Purist
A named help center plus video tutorials is a real learning surface, and a product pitched on simplicity lowers the documentation burden. We found no public information on support channels, availability per plan, response commitments, or a changelog, so I cannot confirm a stuck user gets unstuck quickly. 1
The Integrator
A help center plus video tutorials and help docs is evidenced as the learning surface. We found no public information on support channels, their availability per plan, response times, or a changelog, so I cannot say a stuck user gets unstuck. 1
The Skeptic
A help center, help docs and video tutorials are referenced, which is more than nothing. But I found no public information on support channels, response times, plan gating or the state of any changelog, and I don't grade helpfulness from a link in the page footer. 1
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 page shows an annual example of $1,908/year for the Builder Edition with all 15 people included, and states the tool does not bill per user the way per-user tools do. I found no public information on monthly billing, tax treatment, or the remaining tiers, and the trial requires a credit card. 1
The Bootstrapper
The billing model is stated plainly — not per-user, everyone on the team included — and a calculator-style example shows "$1,908/year Builder Edition plan · all 15 people included", which answers my 3-vs-30-seat question in one stroke. Only one edition's example price is visible though; we found no public information on a full tier price list, monthly-versus-annual differences, or tax treatment. 1
The Enterprise Architect
The page runs a public price calculator — "$1,908/year Builder Edition plan · all 15 people included" — with a free tier and an explicit non-per-user billing model, so a buyer can see a real payable cost before talking to anyone. Tax treatment, billing-period alternatives and the rest of the tier ladder are not shown, and the trial gates on a credit card, so the headline still needs qualifying. 1
The UX Purist
An interactive calculator states the payable figure — "$1,908/year Builder Edition plan · all 15 people included" — alongside a free chart generator and a clearly stated billing model that does not charge per user, so a small team can roughly know its cost upfront. Only the Builder Edition figure is in evidence, though, and we found no public information on other tiers' prices, tax treatment, or monthly billing terms. 1
The Integrator
One real figure is public — $1,908/year for the Builder Edition with all 15 people included — and the non-per-user billing model is stated plainly, which I respect. That calculator output is the only number captured: we found no public information on billing-period choices, tax treatment, or what other tiers cost. 1
The Skeptic
One real number is public — $1,908/year for a Builder Edition plan with all 15 people included — and the people-included billing model is explained rather than buried, with a free tier on top. Only an annual figure is shown, and I found no public information on other tiers, monthly billing, or tax treatment, so the headline needs qualifying. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | US by default ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 2 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 22 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. The company is an LLC described as based in the United States with a Maryland address; no foreign register or subsidiary is mentioned.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. No alternative hosting region is mentioned anywhere in the excerpt, so no EU option exists on this page.
- 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.
- 20 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 10 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 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 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 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.teamgantt.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.teamgantt.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.teamgantt.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.teamgantt.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Reporting — found from sitemap www.teamgantt.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations — found from sitemap www.teamgantt.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations — found from sitemap www.teamgantt.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.teamgantt.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.teamgantt.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →