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 Integrator

Weighted verdict

Lives in the API docs before the product tour. Optimizes for webhooks, import/export and a tool that plays well in a stack. Rejects closed ecosystems and CSV-only exits.

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

Scored by The Integrator

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 Integrator

The Gantt documentation shows real dependencies and a shared view definition — date fields, filters, columns and grouping are changes everyone in the view sees — with people fields on the board, so shared planning is genuine. I found no public information on comments, guest or client access, cross-project views, or workload and capacity planning, which is what the next level up would need. 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 Integrator

Timesheet and Chart views appear in the documented view list, but they read as fixed views: I found no public information on cross-project aggregation, budgets, utilization, or any export path — nothing on CSV and nothing on reporting via the API. Reporting that cannot get its answers out of the product stays at the basic level for me. 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 Integrator

This is where the engineering care shows: a documented API reachable through personal tokens with real hygiene — value shown once, per-token revocation, last-used and expiry dates, permissions scoped to the creator and to a single organization — plus a dedicated Webhooks page under Integrations. But the captured pages stop there: I found no public information on native integrations such as calendar, Slack or Teams, file storage, automation platforms, or import and export paths, so the catalogue side is entirely unevidenced. 4 3

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 Integrator

The captured pages are mechanics how-tos for boards and Gantt; I found no public information on the signup flow, trial terms or payment details, templates, or guided setup. Current, precise docs help a self-serve start, but nothing here evidences how quickly a team reaches a working first project. 1 2

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 Integrator

No company domicile, data residency, DPA or subprocessor information appears in any of the captured pages, so none of it can be verified by a buyer. I treat complete silence on where the company and the data actually sit as scoring near the bottom of this criterion. 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 Integrator

The help center is real, current and precise — the board page is marked last updated Sep 28, 2026, with detail down to keyboard shortcuts, Esc cancelling a drag and Ctrl-Z undo, and the token guide is genuinely practical. I found no public information on support channels, response times, plan-based gating or a changelog, so only the documentation half of this criterion is evidenced. 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 Integrator

I found no public information on pricing in the captured pages — nothing on tiers, seat prices, billing periods or tax treatment. The only pricing-adjacent fact is that personal tokens stop working when an organization's subscription lapses, which tells a buyer a bill exists but not what it costs. 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 →