whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

Vikunja

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by Vikunja (open source) · vikunja.io

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

Sharing runs the full ladder — single user, team, or link share — with eleven task relation types including blocking and subtask hierarchies that set their opposite automatically, and per-project Gantt for timeline planning. Cross-project visibility exists only as saved filters rather than a first-class team plan, and I found no public information on workload or capacity views or time tracking to feed them. 1 6 7 12

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

A dashboard with an overdue-first Upcoming view and custom saved filters answers what is due across projects, and data leaves cleanly through import/export and Copy as Markdown. Beyond that the pages go quiet: I found no public information on time, budget or utilization reporting, a custom report builder, or scheduled delivery. 7 12

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

The connective tissue is genuinely good: webhooks with a documented JSON payload, HMAC-SHA256 signing, and sixteen project plus three user event types manageable through the API with tokens; OAuth importers from Todoist, Trello and Microsoft To Do; a documented path to develop custom migrators; MCP for AI clients; and CalDAV. I dock it for a fire-once webhook with no retry, and I found no public information on native Slack or Teams integrations, file-storage connectors, or automation-platform support. 9 11 12 13

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 cloud path starts from a personal to-do list where Quick Add Magic turns one typed line into a dated, prioritized task, and the OAuth importers redirect through the browser so even a locally hosted instance needs no public exposure. Friction remains on the self-host side, where migrations hinge on a correctly set public-URL setting and large imports can take hours, and I found no public information on guided setup, templates, or trial terms. 1 11 12

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

The imprint names Konrad Langenberg Software in Lübeck with a German VAT ID, cloud hosting sits at Hetzner in Germany and Finland behind ISO 27001-certified data centers, and self-hosting removes the vendor from the data path entirely. What holds it back: I found no public information on a public data processing agreement, and only the hosting subprocessor is named — email, support and payment processing are undisclosed. 1 2 4 5

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

Documentation is what I like to see: a help center spanning twenty topics from webhooks through MCP to import/export, separate technical documentation covering server setup, API details and development guides, and pages that reference current release versions. Support beyond the docs is consult-shaped — training, migration assistance, enterprise packages with SLAs — all arranged by email, and I found no public information on chat channels, published response times, or a visible changelog. 7 12 13

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 for the hosted cloud or rates for the enterprise support packages, which are scoped by email — 'Send us an email to discuss your needs.' The one public cost structure is the AGPLv3 license under which the software itself can be self-hosted. 2 13

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 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 EU only ⚠ unverified 3/3 pts 5 Report an error
Subprocessors EU only ⚠ unverified 2/2 pts 5 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 Vikunja? 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 vikunja.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Hosted cloud vikunja.cloud Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy vikunja.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Imprint vikunja.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Security / trust page vikunja.io Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Reporting — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Integrations — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Support & documentation — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Support & documentation — found from sitemap vikunja.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →