Project Management & Collaboration
Teamleader Focus
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Teamleader NV · www.teamleader.eu
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
Teamleader Focus, a project management and collaboration product from Teamleader NV of Belgium, scores best on onboarding effort and pricing transparency, at 5 to 7: a free 14-day trial with no credit card needed and access to all features, company data autofilled from a VAT number, and every booster priced from an accounting connector at € 5 /month to a shared inbox at € 50 /month, VAT exclusion stated. Integrations scores cluster at 4 on a 200+ apps compatibility claim plus named calendar, email and accounting links — we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks or import paths. Reporting and support and documentation are weakest, both 2 to 4: Insights is a module name, deeper analytics cost € 25 /month, and support rests on a 24/7 AI agent and screen sharing. Judges spread on collaboration depth, 3 to 5 — enough for a small team, thin past a shared calendar and ticket assignment — and on sovereignty, 3 to 4, where a privacy policy oriented to European and Belgian data protection legislation and disclosed personal-data sharing with parent Visma AS sit alongside no public information on data residency or a subprocessor list.
Speaks for it
- Free 14-day trial with no credit card needed, access to all features, and company data autofilled from the VAT number.
- Every booster carries a public price, from the accounting connector at € 5 /month to the shared inbox at € 50 /month, with VAT exclusion stated plainly.
- A shared calendar plans tasks, appointments and calls for yourself and your colleagues, and tickets can be assigned to the appropriate colleague.
- Expenses and income can be sent straight to accounting software through a direct link.
- The privacy policy states concrete retention rules, including automatic deletion of ex-customer data at the latest 90 days after account deactivation.
Held against it
- Project management itself is a € 35 /month add-on rather than part of the entry product.
- Reporting evidence stops at a module named Insights and an Advanced insights add-on at € 25 /month, with no public information on report types, dashboards or exports.
- Support is evidenced only by Tilly, an AI-driven agent available 24/7, and screen sharing, with no public information on a help center, documentation, response times or a changelog.
- The captured pages give different figures for the entry price — 'Prices from € 37 per month' against '€24.75 per user/month, First year' — and no price is captured for FLOW, the tier stated as perfect for larger (10+) teams.
- We found no public information on data residency, hosting location, a public data processing agreement or a subprocessor list, while the privacy policy discloses that personal data is shared with parent company Visma AS.
Best for
- You run a small team — GROW is stated as ideal for up to 10 employees — and want a 14-day trial that needs no credit card and opens all features before you pay.
- You buy add-ons deliberately and want every line priced in public, from an accounting connector at € 5 /month to a shared inbox at € 50 /month, before committing.
- Your working day runs through a shared calendar, a centralized ticket inbox with assignment to colleagues, and figures flowing straight to your accounting software.
Avoid if
- You depend on built-in reporting — time, budget or utilization views, dashboards, exportable reports — since the only evidence is a module name and a paid Advanced insights add-on.
- You plan to migrate existing work from another tool, since the only import described is one performed by Teamleader staff accessing your account with your permission.
- You must verify where data is hosted or which subprocessors are involved before signing, since the pages disclose sharing with parent Visma AS and no residency information.
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
A shared calendar for planning tasks, appointments and calls for yourself and your colleagues, plus ticket assignment to the right colleague, are evidenced — though project management itself sits behind a separate paid booster. We found no public information on dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest and client access. 4 2
The Bootstrapper
A shared agenda for planning tasks, appointments and calls for yourself and your colleagues, plus ticket assignment and replies, gets a small team genuinely working together, and a project management module is on the list. But project management depth is sold as a paid add-on, and we found no public information on dependencies, workload or capacity views, or client guest access. 4 2
The Enterprise Architect
A shared calendar for planning tasks, appointments and calls for yourself and your colleagues, ticket assignment to the right colleague, and a named project-management module give me a real team planning surface. But I found no public information on comments, dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest and client access — the cross-project depth I answer for at two hundred seats is simply not evidenced. 2 4
The UX Purist
A shared agenda for planning tasks for yourself and your colleagues, ticket assignment to the right person, and a dedicated planning module give a first team-level layer. But we found no public information on comments, dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest and client access, so the coordination load beyond the shared calendar lands somewhere else. 4 2
The Integrator
A shared agenda for planning tasks, appointments and calls for yourself and colleagues, plus ticket assignment to colleagues, is real multi-person surface, but everything captured stops there — I found no public information on shared timelines, dependencies, workload or capacity views, or guest access. 4
The Skeptic
A shared agenda for planning tasks "for yourself and your colleagues" and ticket reassignment between staff are evidenced, and a Planning module is named, but we found no public information on shared project timelines, dependencies, workload views, guest access or task comments. The collaboration core itself carries an extra charge — project management is sold as a "€ 35 /month" add-on rather than part of the entry product. 2 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
Insights exists as a named module with an Advanced insights paid add-on, and there is a direct link that sends income and expenses to accounting software. We found no public information on report configuration, cross-project aggregation, time or budget tracking, utilization, or export paths. 4 2 1
The Bootstrapper
An Insights module is on the product list and deeper analytics come as a paid add-on at € 25 /month, with figures flowing onward to accounting software. We found no public information on what the reports actually cover — time, budgets, utilization — nor on filters, dashboards or export formats. 4 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
An Insights module and a separately priced Advanced insights booster exist by name, but the captured pages describe no report types, no time, budget or utilization reporting and no dashboard or export surface; the only export path shown is sending expenses and income to accounting software. I found no public information on cross-project aggregation or exports of work data. 1 2 4
The UX Purist
An Insights module exists and an "Advanced insights" booster is priced at € 25 /month, so some answers are promised. We found no public information on filters, customization, budget or utilization depth, or any export path, which means I cannot tell a buyer whether the answer ever leaves the tool. 4 2
The Integrator
Reporting appears as an "Insights" module name, and the deeper capability sits behind a paid "Advanced insights € 25 /month" booster — the captured pages never show what either produces. I found no public information on time tracking, budget or utilization reporting, dashboards, or any export path for reports. 2 4
The Skeptic
The only reporting evidence is a module named "Insights" in a feature list plus an "Advanced insights € 25 /month" add-on — the substantive reporting costs extra and is entirely undescribed in the captured pages. We found no public information on dashboards, time, budget or utilization reporting, or on exporting any report. 2 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 vendor claims compatibility with 200+ apps, with named calendar, email and communication, and accounting integrations. We found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, automation-platform support, or import paths from competing tools. 4 1
The Bootstrapper
The catalogue claim is broad — compatibility with 200+ apps, plus calendar, email and accounting links — which is well past a handful of marquee names. But we found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks or real import paths, which is what separates a connector story from a logo wall. 4 1
The Enterprise Architect
"Compatible with 200+ apps" plus named calendar, email/communications and accounting links cover the common set, and the accounting link is a genuine business-system connection. But I found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, automation-platform support or import paths from competitors — for procurement, an unevidenced API is a real exit-path concern. 1 4
The UX Purist
Calendar, email and communication records, an accounting link and a claim of compatibility with 200+ apps cover the common set on paper. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks or automation-platform support, and the accounting connection sits behind a paid connector, so the breadth is asserted rather than shown to a buyer. 4 1
The Integrator
The vendor claims compatibility with 200+ apps, with named accounting, calendar and email integrations and an accounting link for expenses and income — a genuinely broad native catalogue on paper. But this is where I live, and the pages show no API documentation, no webhooks, no automation-platform coverage and no import path from competitors; without a documented API the catalogue alone does not carry it. 1 4
The Skeptic
Calendar, email and accounting links plus a claim of compatibility with "200+ apps" are on the record, but a compatibility count is a marketing number with no catalogue behind it in the captured pages. We found no public information on a documented public API, webhooks, automation-platform support, or import paths from competing tools. 1 4
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
A 14-day free trial with access to all features and no credit card, VAT-number autofill that fills in company data, and a 24/7 AI support agent point to low friction at signup. We found no public information on guided setup, templates, or importers that pull existing work in. 4 1 2
The Bootstrapper
The 14-day trial needs no credit card and opens all features, the VAT-number autofill fills in company data for you, plan guidance is given by team size, and a 24/7 AI support agent is on call from day one. We found no public information on guided setup, templates or importers, so the path to value looks fast but not fully paved. 1 4 2
The Enterprise Architect
The self-serve path is real: a 14-day trial, no credit card needed, access to all features, and company data autofilled from the VAT number. I found no public information on guided setup, templates or importers, and the module mix a newcomer must judge — project management itself sits behind a paid booster — keeps first value a day-one evaluation rather than an hour. 1 2 4
The UX Purist
The trial is properly frictionless — 14 days, no credit card, access to all features, start today — which is exactly how time-to-first-value should begin. But we found no public information on guided setup, templates or self-serve importers, and the privacy policy describes imports performed by Teamleader staff accessing your account with your permission, a slower path than a first hour carried by the product itself. 1 4 3
The Integrator
A free 14-day trial with no credit card needed and access to all features is a strong self-serve entry, stated twice and without commitment. I found no public information on guided setup, templates or importers to pull existing work in, and the modular pricing suggests a newcomer must judge which paid boosters a first project needs. 1 4
The Skeptic
"Free 14-day trial No credit card needed Access to all features" is genuinely good trial hygiene, and VAT-number autofill fills in company data automatically. But we found no public information on guided setup, templates or self-serve importers — the only import mentioned is one Teamleader staff perform on request — so nothing evidences how quickly a team reaches a working project. 1 3 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
The vendor declares European and Belgian data protection law, publishes a DPO contact, guarantees deletion of ex-customer data within 90 days, and its parent Visma is itself European — with the personal-data sharing to the parent disclosed rather than buried. But we found no public information on data residency or hosting location, and no subprocessor list, and a vendor that cannot answer where the data lives does not earn the upper half of this scale. 3 4 1
The Bootstrapper
A Belgian company inside the European Visma Group, with GDPR and Belgian-law commitments and a named data protection officer — ownership and legal posture both read as genuinely European. But we found no public information on data residency, a public data processing agreement or the subprocessor list, so I cannot verify where the data actually sits. 3 1
The Enterprise Architect
The privacy policy shows genuine GDPR engagement — European and Belgian legislation, a DPO address, concrete retention and employee-access rules — and the parent is Norway's Visma Group, with personal data shared with Visma AS. But I found no public information on data residency, hosting location, a public DPA or a subprocessor list; without a residency commitment I cannot verify where the data sits, and that is compliance paperwork over substance. 1 3
The UX Purist
The privacy policy is oriented to European and Belgian data protection legislation with a named DPO contact, and the company is stated as part of the Visma Group since June 2022 with personal data shared with the parent Visma AS. We found no public information on data residency, a public DPA, or a subprocessor list, so where the data actually sits is unverifiable from these captures. 3 1
The Integrator
The vendor commits to European and Belgian data protection legislation, publishes a DPO address, and sits under a European parent, Visma AS, since June 2022 — with the privacy policy noting personal data is shared with that parent. I found no public information on data residency, a public DPA, or any subprocessor list, so the substance behind the GDPR language cannot be verified from the captures. 3
The Skeptic
The privacy policy offers a DPO address and retention rules but only pledges to "strive to comply with the European and Belgian data protection legislation as much as possible", and states that personal data is shared with parent company Visma AS. We found no public information on where data is hosted, on any subprocessor list, or on a public data processing agreement — that silence is the story. 1 3
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 24/7 AI-driven support agent named Tilly and synchronous screen-sharing support are the only support surfaces evidenced. We found no public information on a searchable help center, documentation depth, response-time commitments, or whether support quality varies by plan. 2 3
The Bootstrapper
Support has a real presence: Tilly, a 24/7 AI-driven support agent, and synchronous help through screen sharing. We found no public information on a searchable help center, documentation depth, response times by plan, or a changelog — so a stuck user may or may not get unstuck from written material. 2 3
The Enterprise Architect
Tilly, an AI-driven support agent available 24/7, plus synchronous screen-sharing support are evidenced and better than a bare contact form. But I found no public information on help-center depth, response times, SLAs, changelogs or how support channels are gated per plan — the things I would need before committing two hundred seats. 2 3 4
The UX Purist
Tilly, an AI-driven support agent available 24/7, plus synchronous support through screen sharing, are real unsticking channels not gated behind tiers on the evidence shown. We found no public information on help-center depth, onboarding guides, a changelog, or response-time commitments, so the learning surface a buyer would lean on daily is invisible. 2 3
The Integrator
Tilly, an AI-driven support agent available 24/7, plus synchronous support through screen sharing, are evidenced and promising channels. I found no public information on a help center, onboarding guides, a changelog, or how support availability varies per plan, which leaves the documentation half of the criterion unverified. 2 3
The Skeptic
On the record: "Tilly, our AI-driven support agent, is available 24/7" and screen-sharing help — an AI chatbot is the cheapest support promise a vendor can print. We found no public information on a help center, documentation, human support channels, response times per plan, or any changelog showing active maintenance. 2 3
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
Every booster carries a public price, VAT exclusion is stated plainly, and the annual discount is 17%, so most line items are visible on the page. But the Grow price of €24.75 per user/month is labelled first year with no ongoing figure shown, the larger-team product carries no price, and project management itself sits behind a €35/month booster — so the headline still needs qualifying. 2 1
The Bootstrapper
Credit where due: every add-on carries a public price (Project management € 35 /month, Shared inbox € 50 /month), VAT treatment is stated plainly, and the billing-period discounts are spelled out. But the headline "€24.75 per user/month" is a first-year figure with stacked discounts, the homepage gives a different entry figure in "Prices from € 37 per month.", and we found no public information on a price for FLOW — the tier the vendor itself steers larger teams toward — so neither my 3-seat nor my 30-seat buyer can pin the invoice number. 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
The pricing page is unusually forthcoming: every booster itemized from an accounting connector at €5/month to a shared inbox at €50/month, the annual saving stated as "17% saved", and "All prices exclude VAT and include discounts" puts tax treatment plainly on the page. The headline "Prices from € 37 per month" still needs decoding against the quoted first-year figure of €24.75 per user/month, a stack of conditional discounts reshapes the real invoice, and I found no public figure for the larger-team tier — good, but not invoice-grade. 1 2
The UX Purist
Six boosters itemized to the euro, an explicit "All prices exclude VAT and include discounts", and stated discount mechanics (17% on annual billing, 50% from the 6th user onwards) give good density. But only GROW carries a captured price at "€24.75 per user/month, First year", FLOW is recommended for larger teams without a captured number, and the captured pages give different figures for the entry point ("Prices from € 37 per month" versus the per-user GROW figure), so the headline needs qualifying. 2 1
The Integrator
The pricing page is unusually explicit: "All prices exclude VAT and include discounts", a stated 17% annual discount, itemized booster prices from "Accounting connector € 5 /month" to "Shared inbox € 50 /month", and per-user pricing for GROW at €24.75 per user/month. The GROW figure carries a "First year" qualifier, the homepage states "Prices from € 37 per month" while the pricing page prices per user, and no FLOW price appears in the captures — a buyer still needs to qualify the headline before invoicing. 1 2
The Skeptic
Credit where due: add-on prices, "All prices exclude VAT and include discounts", and the billing discounts are printed plainly. But the entry per-user figure is a first-year price ("€24.75 per user/month, First year"), the captured pages give different figures for the entry price ("Prices from € 37 per month" on the homepage), we found no public information on pricing for the tier recommended for teams above ten, and project management is a "€ 35 /month" add-on — the vendor even says "Our calculator divides the price among your users", so the headline number is not the invoice number. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited 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 — Ownership, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 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
- 3 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
- 2 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
- 1 integrations 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.teamleader.eu Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.teamleader.eu Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.teamleader.eu Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.teamleader.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →