whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

Toggl Plan

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 Toggl OÜ · toggl.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 planning is real: timeline/Gantt views, milestones, team-level capacity signals and PTO feed a team-level plan rather than per-person lists, with custom roles reserved for Enterprise. We found no public information on guest or client access, dependencies, cross-project views or comment threads, which keeps this short of first-class team planning. 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

Reporting goes past status views — labor costs, profitability reports, fixed fee projects, project dashboards with time actuals versus estimates, and team-level revenue reports give genuine budget depth. We found no public information on export formats, scheduled delivery or a custom report builder, so this sits between standard reports and fully configurable cross-project reporting. 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

There is a public API surfaced with MCP and CLI, calendar integrations on the free plan, and Jira and Asana connections on Premium. Beyond that the catalogue is unevidenced — we found no public information on comms tools, file storage, webhooks or automation-platform support — which places this below the common-set level. 2

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

Self-serve friction is low: a free-forever plan with tasks, boards and estimates lets a team get value before paying, the 30-day trial is advertised with no strings attached, and expert onboarding is an optional add-on rather than a gate. We found no public information on guided setup, templates or import paths for existing work, which limits how fast a migrating team could move. 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 Data Protection Officer

The legal posture looks serious on paper — a public Data Processing Agreement, a Sub-processor List, a Security Policy and an EU Data Act Addendum from an Estonian entity — but the captured pages never state where the data is hosted, who controls the company, or which jurisdictions the subprocessors sit in. I cannot verify where the data lives, and I score only what I can verify. 4 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 only support evidence is a Contact Support link beside an extensive legal document library; we found no public information on a searchable help center, per-plan support channels, response times or a changelog. For a stuck user, the captured pages show a contact route and policy documents. 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 Data Protection Officer

The self-serve tiers are plainly priced — Free at $0, Starter at $9 per user per month, Premium at $16 per user per month — with the annual saving stated as 33.3% or four months free. Qualifiers remain: the pages do not say which billing period the per-user prices assume, how taxes are treated, what the free plan's limited number of users is, or what the optional onboarding and time-off add-ons cost, and Enterprise is contact-us. 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 — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — 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 Toggl Plan? 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 toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 20 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 20 Aug 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Vendor pricing page toggl.com Checked 11 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Legal hub toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 17 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Legal notice toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Reporting — found from sitemap toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations — found from sitemap toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations — found from sitemap toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap docs.toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap support.toggl.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →