Project Management & Collaboration
Wimi
EU-Made Report an errorPanel 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 Wimi SAS · www.wimi-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 panel's verdict
Wimi, a project management and collaboration suite from Paris-based Wimi SAS, scored 5 to 7 on collaboration depth and 5 to 6 on reporting, against 2 to 3 on integrations. Judges credited Kanban boards with assignments and due dates, Gantt dependencies, free external users and five real-time analytics views — status, load, burndown, performance, tags — while noting each space keeps its own isolated statistics. Integrations drew the floor: beyond Outlook sync and mobile apps, judges found no public API, webhooks or import paths. Sovereignty ranged 4 to 6: the homepage claims data hosted 100% in France on the vendor's own datacenters, and the pages state a SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 qualification with 360 audited control points — yet no data processing agreement or subprocessor list was found, and the qualified scope excludes Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign. Three tiers carry public prices — 3 €, 9 € and 12 € per month/user — with no price shown for the Suite tier. No criterion drew a flagged disagreement.
Speaks for it
- Kanban boards with assignments, tags and due dates plus Gantt charts with task dependencies support real per-project team planning
- Five analytics views — status, load, burndown, performance, tags — recalculate in real time from the task board and export for meetings
- External users are free on Wimi, per the vendor's pricing page
- Wimi Community, Wimi Drive and Wimi Projects each carry a public per-user price — 3 €, 9 € and 12 € per month/user
- Stated security features include end-to-end encrypted chat, an antivirus scanning files uploaded to Wimi Drive, MFA and unlimited backups with instant restore
Held against it
- Integrations scored 2 to 3, with Outlook sync and the mobile apps the only captured connectors and no public API, webhooks or import paths found
- Each space keeps its own isolated statistics, with no public information on cross-project aggregation, budgets or time tracking
- The Suite tier and the sovereign-mailboxes option are listed without prices, with no public information on billing-period differences or tax treatment
- No public data processing agreement, subprocessor list or ownership confirmation was found, and the SecNumCloud-qualified scope excludes Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign
- Beyond a support phone line and email, no public help center, response-time commitment or changelog was found
Best for
- You need per-project team planning — Kanban boards with assignments and due dates, Gantt charts with task dependencies — with free external users for clients
- You want real-time, task-fed reporting per project, with five views including burndown and load that export for meetings
- You want public per-user pricing before a sales conversation, with three tiers at 3 €, 9 € and 12 € per month/user
- You are a sovereignty-focused buyer weighing the stated SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 qualification, HDS status and the Diffusion Restreinte offer with Thales
Avoid if
- Your team depends on Slack, Teams, an automation platform or a documented API — integrations scored 2 to 3 and the captured connectors are Outlook sync and the mobile apps
- You need portfolio-level reporting across projects — the vendor's own analytics page states each space has its own isolated statistics
- You need budget, time-tracking or utilization reporting — the analytics shown are five task-fed views: status, load, burndown, performance and tags
- You must verify sovereignty terms before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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
The captured pages show workspaces with tasks, files, discussions and agenda, Kanban cards carrying assignment, due date and progress, Gantt timelines with dependencies, a personal task view that reaches across workspaces, and a pricing page stating external users are free. Views named load and workload give capacity signals, but statistics are isolated per space with member-only access, and we found no public information on guest permissions or shared planning across projects. 2 3 4
The Bootstrapper
Kanban with assignees, tags and due dates, a Gantt with real dependencies, and per-space discussions, files and agenda give me genuine shared-project bones, and external users are free. What I found no public information on is a cross-project team view, a team-level workload or capacity view, or guest and client permissions — the cross-workspace task view captured is personal aggregation, not team planning. 3 2
The Enterprise Architect
Kanban cards with assignments, tags and due dates plus a Gantt with dependencies between tasks give real team-level planning, and free external users cover client access. What I could not evidence is team-level cross-project work — statistics are isolated per workspace and the only cross-workspace view shown is personal task aggregation — and workload appears only as a per-space load chart. 2 3
The UX Purist
Kanban cards carry assignments, dates and progress, the Gantt view does real dependencies, and a personal task view aggregates across workspaces — that is first-class team planning. It stops short of the full span: statistics are isolated per workspace, so cross-project reporting needs workarounds, and we found no public information on permission roles beyond external users being free. 2 3 4
The Integrator
Workspaces carry real multi-person work — Kanban cards with assignments and due dates, a Gantt with dependencies between tasks, discussions, free external users, and a load view for workload. Planning stays bounded inside each space though: statistics are isolated per workspace, only personal task aggregation crosses spaces, and we found no public information on team-level cross-project or capacity views. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
Assignments, tags and Gantt dependencies are shown on the feature pages, and external users are advertised as free — but the vendor's own analytics page states each space has its own isolated statistics, and we found no public information on cross-project capacity views or guest permissions. That is solid shared projects with per-project planning, not portfolio-level team planning. 2 3 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
Five analytical views — status, load, burndown, performance and tags — recalculate in real time from the task board, keep a complete history, compare multiple lists and export cleanly for meetings. We found no public information on time tracking, budgets or utilization, and the captured pages state each space's statistics are isolated from the others, so aggregation across projects is not evidenced. 3 4
The Bootstrapper
Real-time views for status, load, burndown, performance and tags, recalculated straight from the tasks with list filters, kept history and an export for meetings is a genuinely useful standard set. But statistics are described as isolated per space with nothing showing cross-project aggregation, and we found no public information on budgets, time tracking, utilization depth or export formats. 4
The Enterprise Architect
Task-fed analytics with five views (status, load, burndown, performance, tags), instant recalculation, filters by list and time period, kept history and exportable graphics clear useful standard reporting with room to spare. I found no public information on budgets, time tracking or utilization, and cross-project aggregation is explicitly out of scope: each space keeps isolated statistics. 3 4
The UX Purist
Five views — status, load, burndown, performance, tags — recalculate live from the task board, which is reporting that teaches itself. But every statistic is isolated per workspace, there is no budget or utilization angle, and export is described only as a ready-to-use format; we found no public information on dashboards, scheduled delivery or API access to metrics. 4
The Integrator
Five analytic views — status, load, burndown, performance, tags — recalculate in real time from the task board, keep full history, and export in a ready-to-use format. Depth stops at the workspace wall since each space's statistics are isolated, the export format is not named, and we found no public information on budgets, utilization, or API access to metrics. 4
The Skeptic
Five fixed views — status, load, burndown, performance, tags — recalculate in real time from the Kanban board and can be exported, which is genuinely useful per-project reporting. But statistics are explicitly walled off per space, and we found no public information on time tracking, budgets, utilization, export formats or any cross-project aggregation. 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
What the captured pages show is Outlook sync with reminders, App Store and Google Play apps, and an in-product signature with guaranteed legal validity requiring no third-party tool. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, automation-platform connectors, comms tools beyond native chat, or import paths from competitors. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Outlook sync with reminders, mobile apps on both stores and a native e-signature module are the whole visible connection surface. We found no public information on a public API, webhooks, Slack or Teams connections, automation platforms, or import paths from competing tools, which makes this close to a closed box. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
The captured pages show Outlook synchronization with reminders, mobile apps on App Store and Google Play, and a native e-signature that needs no third-party tool — effectively one real calendar hook. We found no public information on a public API, webhooks, Slack or Teams connectors, file-storage integrations, automation platforms, or import paths from competing tools. 1 2
The UX Purist
The captured pages show exactly one connector — Outlook sync and reminders — plus mobile apps, and nothing else: we found no public information on an API, webhooks, Slack or Teams hooks, or import paths from competing tools. For a suite that wants to be your chat, visio, documents and mail, one integration is a closed box with a single window. 1 2
The Integrator
What the pages show is Outlook synchronization, mobile apps on both stores, and a native e-signature; we found no public information on a public API, webhooks, Slack or Teams connectors, automation platforms, or import paths from competing tools. One calendar hook does not make a stack citizen, and we found no public information on a data-exit path beyond report exports. 1 2
The Skeptic
The entire captured catalogue amounts to Outlook sync and two mobile apps; chat, visio and e-signature are in-house modules, which says nothing about connecting to the buyer's existing stack. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, Slack/Teams connectors, file-storage integrations or import paths from competitors. 1 2
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
Public per-user tiers and workspaces that come with tasks, files, discussions and agenda point to a self-serve path with sensible defaults. We found no public information on trial terms, whether payment details are required at signup, guided setup or project templates, so the distance from signup to a working project cannot be judged from the captured pages. 2 3
The Bootstrapper
The public per-user tiers imply I could buy without a call, but that is where the visibility ends. We found no public information on a trial, whether payment details are required, guided setup, templates, or any importer that would pull existing work in — the only onboarding-adjacent items captured are the sales and support lines. 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
Public per-user pricing on self-serve tiers suggests a team can buy without a sales call. We found no public information on trial terms, guided setup, templates or importers, so nothing captured evidences how quickly a first project actually runs. 2
The UX Purist
Per-user monthly tiers on a public pricing page suggest a self-serve path exists, but we found no public information on a trial, guided setup, templates or importers — nothing lets me put a stopwatch on signup to first project. The Atos, Docaposte and Thales partnership offers point the larger route back through sales conversations. 1 2
The Integrator
Self-serve per-user monthly tiers and a default workspace of tasks, files, discussions and agenda look like a same-day start. But we found no public information on a free trial, guided setup, templates, or importers to pull existing work in, so I cannot confirm the signup-to-first-project path. 2 3
The Skeptic
Public per-user tier pricing hints at a self-serve path, but that is my inference, not a captured signup flow. We found no public information on a trial or its payment-details terms, guided setup, templates, or importers for existing work — nothing captured shows how a newcomer reaches a first working project. 2
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
Homepage copy asserts data hosted 100% in France on the vendor's own datacenters with immunity from the Cloud Act, next to a SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 qualification — yet the qualified scope as captured excludes Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign, and we found no public data processing agreement, subprocessor list or deletion guarantee. Ownership is unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages, so the strongest sovereignty claims rest on marketing assertions rather than contract-grade documents; a French-hosting promise I cannot sign off on without the paperwork. 1
The Bootstrapper
The homepage claims data hosted "100% en France" in Wimi's own datacenters, SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 qualification and Cloud Act immunity, which is more substance than most vendors even assert. But the residency claim rests on marketing copy — we found no public data processing agreement or hosting page — ownership control and subprocessors are unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and the captured qualification scope leaves Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign outside it. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
A Paris-based vendor claiming its own French datacenters, SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 with over 360 audited control points, ISO 27001:2022, HDS and a Diffusion Restreinte offer with Thales is a serious European posture. But the residency and Cloud Act immunity statements are homepage marketing: I found no public information on a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, or confirmed ownership control, and the qualified scope leaves Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign outside it. 1
The UX Purist
Homepage copy promises data hosted 100% in France on their own datacenters, backed by a SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 qualification with 360 audited control points — substance, not just paperwork. But ownership and subprocessor exposure are unconfirmed on the captured pages, no data processing agreement is shown, and the qualified scope excludes Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign. 1
The Integrator
The vendor claims 100% French hosting on its own datacenters with immunity from the Cloud Act and Patriot Act, backed by a SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 qualification with 360 audited control points, HDS and Diffusion Restreinte. Ownership and legal jurisdiction are not confirmed on the captured pages, no data processing agreement is captured, and the qualified scope excludes Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign — a strong sovereignty posture, only partly verifiable from what is public here. 1
The Skeptic
The homepage shouts guaranteed sovereignty with own French datacenters, claimed immunity to Cloud Act and Patriot Act, and a SecNumCloud SaaS 3.2 qualification with 360 audited control points — yet the qualified scope excludes Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign, and we found no public information confirming ownership, a published data processing agreement, or subprocessors. Loud assertions on a marketing page, thin paper behind them. 1
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
Support and sales are reachable by phone and email, and English feature pages for Gantt and analytics exist, but we found no public information on a searchable help center, chat, response times by plan, an academy or a changelog. What is captured reads as marketing-level feature pages rather than a documentation surface that gets a stuck user unstuck. 1 3 4
The Bootstrapper
A named support team with phone and email beats a bare contact form. But we found no public information on a help center, onboarding guides, per-plan support levels, response times or a changelog, and the feature pages captured read as marketing rather than documentation. 1 3
The Enterprise Architect
A published support email and phone line plus detailed feature pages for Kanban, Gantt and analytics are a start. We found no public information on a searchable help center, response times or availability per plan, SLAs, or a changelog — thin for a two-hundred-seat commitment. 1 3 4
The UX Purist
Support gets a named email and phone line alongside sales, and the feature pages do explain behavior like Gantt dependencies and analytics filtering. We found no public information on a help center, response times, plan-gated support or a changelog — a stuck user gets a phone number, not a path. 1 3 4
The Integrator
Published support and sales phone numbers and email addresses, plus feature pages detailed enough to surface from the sitemap, are the visible surface. We found no public information on a searchable help center, response-time commitments, a changelog, or how support varies across plans. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
Support reaches a published email and phone, which beats a bare contact form. Beyond that we found no public information on a help center, documentation, a changelog, response times, or what support each tier actually buys — the captured product pages are marketing, not a learning surface. 1 4
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
Three tiers are priced plainly on the pricing page — 3 € per month/user for Community, 9 € per month/user for Drive, 12 € per month/user for Projects — with feature lists and the statement that external users are free. Neither billing period nor tax treatment is stated, and the captured pages give no price for the Suite tier, so the invoice-true cost of the full module set remains undeterminable. 2
The Bootstrapper
Wimi Community, Drive and Projects each carry a public price — 3 €, 9 € and 12 € per month/user — with external users free and no seat minimum in the captures, which is a page I can almost buy from. It stops there: the Suite tier's features are listed with no price in the captures, and we found no public information on billing-period differences or tax treatment, so the number I'd actually pay at 30 seats is not fully on the page. 2 1
The Enterprise Architect
Three tiers are plainly priced at 3 € per month/user, 9 € per month/user and 12 € per month/user, and free external users are stated, which a buyer can work with. The top suite and the sovereign-mailbox option are captured with feature lists but no price, and the pages give no billing-period difference or tax treatment, so the headline number still needs qualifying. 1 2
The UX Purist
Three tiers are priced plainly on the page — Community at 3 € per month/user, Drive at 9 € per month/user, Projects at 12 € per month/user — with external users free, which a buyer can act on. But we found no public information on a price for the full suite bundle, on annual-versus-monthly billing differences, or on tax treatment, so the headline numbers still need qualifying before an invoice. 2
The Integrator
Three tiers carry plain numbers — 3 €, 9 € and 12 € per month/user — with included features itemized and external users free. The top suite tier shows features with no captured price, and we found no public information on billing-period differences or tax treatment, so the headline number still needs qualifying. 2
The Skeptic
Three tiers carry clean public numbers — "3 € per month/user", "9 € per month/user", "12 € per month/user" — with external users free, which is more than many vendors show. But we found no public information on a price for the top Suite tier, on the cost of the sovereign-mailboxes option the whole pitch leans on, or on billing-period differences and tax treatment. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Aug 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, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. This is homepage marketing copy with no data processing agreement or hosting page captured to confirm it, and per S2 the SecNumCloud-qualified scope excludes Wimi Drive, Wimi Mail and Wimi Sign.
- 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.
- 22 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
- 16 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
- 9 compliance 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 hosting 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 integrations 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 legal 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
- 1 support 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.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 20 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Reporting — found from sitemap www.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →