whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

Teamleader Focus

EU-Made 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 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 Enterprise Architect

Weighted verdict

Buys for two hundred seats and answers for it later. Optimizes for SSO/SCIM, permissions, audit trails, certifications and a clean exit. Rejects anything that cannot survive procurement.

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

Scored by The Enterprise Architect

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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 Teamleader Focus? 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 Vendor homepage www.teamleader.eu Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page www.teamleader.eu Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.teamleader.eu Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.teamleader.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →