whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

Teamhood

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Eylean Board · teamhood.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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Reads the DPA before the feature list. Optimizes for GDPR posture: EU hosting, subprocessor exposure, deletion guarantees. Rejects anything that cannot answer where the data lives.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Collaboration depth

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Boards built on people fields give real assignments, and the scheduling page documents genuine dependencies, parent-child nesting and a shared view definition every teammate sees — a real shared workspace, not a personal list. We found no public information on comments, guest or client access, workload or capacity views, or cross-project planning, which keeps it below the solid-shared-projects mark. 1 2

Report an error

Reporting

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The documented view list names Timesheet and Chart, so time and some visualization exist beyond staring at the board. We found no public information on filters, cross-project aggregation, budgets, utilization or any export path, so the answer to any real question stays inside one project view. 2

Report an error

Integrations

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The personal-token page shows a documented API with per-user permission scoping, last-used and expiry tracking, and clean individual revocation — exactly the governance I want around programmatic access — and webhooks have their own help page. We found no public information on native integrations such as calendar, chat or file storage, on automation platforms, or on import paths from competing tools. 3 4

Report an error

Onboarding effort

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The one bright spot is that the help pages are current and walk a newcomer through board basics in plain language. We found no public information on self-serve signup, trial terms, payment details, guided setup or templates, so the signup-to-first-project journey cannot be judged from the captured pages and I score low accordingly. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

I read the data processing agreement before the feature list, and here I found no public information on data residency, a processing agreement, subprocessors, or where the vendor legally sits — nothing answers where the data lives. An unverifiable posture sits in the bottom band; I hold a single point of grace only because the captured pages are silent on hosting and applicable law rather than showing US infrastructure under US law. 1 2 3 4

Report an error

Support & documentation

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The help center is genuinely current — the board page carries a late-September 2026 update date — and its plain-language coverage of views and API tokens is above thin. We found no public information on support channels, their availability per plan, response times or a changelog, which caps this below a help center paired with reachable support on all plans. 1 2 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

No price, tier or billing figure appears anywhere in what was captured. The only pricing-adjacent fact is that subscriptions exist, because a lapsed one stops personal tokens from answering — a buyer can determine no payable number before talking to the vendor. 4

Report an error

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about Teamhood? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (4)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.teamhood.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.teamhood.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Integrations — found from sitemap help.teamhood.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Integrations — found from sitemap help.teamhood.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →