whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

Teamwork.com

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by Teamwork Crew Ltd · www.teamwork.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

Shared Gantt timelines with dependencies, task comments with @mentions of colleagues or clients, and a workload planner with utilization and revenue forecasting give team-level planning real substance, backed by role-based permissions on every plan. Client involvement is evidenced through mentions and shareable reports rather than a distinct guest-permission surface, and cross-project views arrive mainly through the reporting layer, which keeps this just below the very top. 2 4 5 6 13

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

Budget burn against plan, estimated versus actual hours, utilization, and revenue-costs-margin by project are all evidenced, with dozens of reports and automated client-ready output. Direct SQL access to raw data plus live connections into Looker, Tableau and Power BI answers questions the standard reports cannot. We found no public information on scheduled report delivery or a from-scratch report builder, which is what the top of this scale describes. 6 7

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

A catalogue of more than 150 integrations, a public API, first-class Zapier and Make support, and genuine migration paths through Unito and Jira synchronisation cover the rest of a stack. The product is also an extensible surface in its own right, with an MCP server plus Claude and ChatGPT connections. We found no public information on webhooks or on whether API export covers a complete exit, so I stop one step short of the top. 1 8 9

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

Signup offers a free account with template selection and an explicit EU hosting choice, the 14-day trial requires no credit card, and an in-product guided setup walks site admins through site name, URL and branding, supported by Academy Get Started learning paths. We found no public information on an importer pulling existing projects in during first setup, which the highest step of this scale expects. 1 10 11 13

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

A data processing agreement exists alongside US and UK transfer addenda, and EU hosting is a genuine, selectable option even at signup and on the free plan — but the captured pages never say which region a new account defaults to, and the residency promise sits in pricing copy rather than the agreement itself. Ownership is flagged for verification following a 2024 investment, and we found no public information on subprocessors, so I cannot fully answer where customer data flows. Paperwork present, substance only half-verifiable from public pages. 2 3 10

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

Help documentation covers the core product plus each sibling product, and the Academy runs structured learning paths from fundamentals through resource management and budgets, with free expert training on every plan. Email and live chat operate long weekday hours with limited weekend cover, and a status page and roadmap are published. We found no public information on support SLAs, a community surface, or how response channels vary by plan. 2 12 13

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 Data Protection Officer

The free plan's limits are stated plainly — Maximum 5 users, Up to 5 projects, 100 automations — and the annual saving is quoted as "Save 29%", but the captured pages give no price figures for any paid self-serve tier, while Optimize and Enterprise sit behind "Let's talk". Tax treatment is never stated and usage-based AI credits launch in September 2026 with no rates published, so a buyer cannot determine the payable cost before contacting sales. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 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 — uncited Report an error
Data residency EU optional ⚠ unverified 1/3 pts 2 Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — 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 Teamwork.com? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (13)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.teamwork.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page www.teamwork.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Legal hub www.teamwork.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Reporting — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Reporting — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Integrations — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap www.teamwork.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →