whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Project Management & Collaboration

Wimi

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 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 UX Purist

Weighted verdict

Measures time-to-first-value with a stopwatch. Optimizes for clarity, density and software that teaches itself. Rejects fourteen-step setups and empty screens that offer no way forward.

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

Scored by The UX Purist

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 ⚠ 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

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 Wimi? 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.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page www.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 20 Aug 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap www.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Reporting — found from sitemap www.wimi-teamwork.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →