Project Management & Collaboration
Zenkit
EU-Made Report an errorPanel 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 Axonic Informationssysteme GmbH · zenkit.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
Zenkit, Axonic GmbH's project management tool, scores highest on pricing transparency — the one criterion with min 8 and max 8 — because Plus (€8 per seat, max 10 users), Team (€12, unlimited users) and Business (€21) are priced on the page, the VAT exclusion is stated and the annual discount runs up to 16%; only Enterprise is unpriced. Weakest is collaboration depth at 3-6, where the bench genuinely splits: The Enterprise Architect (6) credits Gantt views, team-and-member reporting and Business-tier multi-project management, while skeptic (3) finds nothing confirming task assignment, comments, dependencies, workload or guest access beyond a chat pane. Integrations splits 4-7: 1-click import from Trello, Asana and Microsoft To Do plus 1500+ Zapier apps earn The Data Protection Officer a 7, but skeptic's 4 weighs the API behind the €21 Business plan and no evidenced native calendar, Slack/Teams or webhook hooks. Reporting shows no evidenced export path; support & documentation no help center; onboarding effort spans 5-7 with trial terms unevidenced. Sovereignty rests on a checkable German entity while the evidence lists data residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown; weighted totals span 4.7-6.1.
Speaks for it
- Every self-serve tier carries a printed per-seat monthly price — Plus €8 (max 10 users), Team €12 (unlimited users), Business €21 — with 'All prices are excluding VAT' and up to 16% annual saving stated
- 1-click migration from Trello, Asana or Microsoft To Do, plus CSV import, moves existing work 'in minutes'
- 1500+ Zapier integrations cover automation, with API access available on the Business plan and above
- Over 100 ready-made reports run in a real-time dashboard customizable by project, team or member
- The vendor entity is verifiable — Axonic GmbH, Kaiserstraße 241 Karlsruhe, Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 110424, VAT ID DE 813834557
Held against it
- Task assignments, comments, dependencies, workload and guest/client access are unevidenced, leaving collaboration depth at 3-6
- API access sits behind the €21 Business plan, and no native calendar, Slack/Teams, storage integrations or webhooks are evidenced
- No export path, time tracking, budget or utilization reporting appears anywhere in the evidence
- No help center, onboarding docs or changelog is evidenced, and Premium support is a Business-plan feature
- Data residency, subprocessor exposure and ownership are marked unknown in the evidence — sovereignty attributes computing 3/10 — while the Germany-based servers claim is homepage copy with no public DPA evidenced
Best for
- You need the full invoice computable before any sales call — every self-serve tier is priced on the page with VAT treatment stated
- You are migrating from Trello, Asana or Microsoft To Do and want 1-click import of existing work
- You rely on Zapier for automation and can sit on Business (€21/seat) for API access, SSO (SAML) and SCIM provisioning
- A verifiable German vendor matters to you — the register entry, VAT ID and Baden-Württemberg jurisdiction are published
Avoid if
- You need evidenced task assignment, comments, dependencies, workload or guest/client access before adopting — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must export report data or track time, budgets and utilization — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need the API or webhooks while on Plus or Team — API access starts at Business
- You require a contracted residency commitment, a public DPA or a subprocessor list before signing — the evidence lists residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown
The scores
Collaboration depth
panel disagrees
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
Multi-user projects plainly exist — unlimited users on Team, centralized user/group management and multi-project management on Business, with Chat, Gantt and Dashboard views — but the evidence never evidences assignments, comments, guest access, dependencies or a workload view, so I can only place this between shareable tasks and first-class team planning. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Shared multi-user projects are real: Kanban/Gantt/Dashboard views, in-tool chat, reporting by team and member, plus centralized user and group management on Business. But nothing evidences comments, mentions, guest/client access, dependencies or workload views, so I can't credit planning beyond one team-level tier. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Team-level planning is real — Gantt views, dashboards, cross-project reporting by project/team/member, and centralized group/user management on the Business tier. But the evidence is silent on dependencies, workload/capacity and guest or client access, which is exactly where a 200-seat department hits the ceiling. 1 2
The Integrator
There's a real team surface — Kanban, Gantt, Chat and dashboard views, plus reports sliceable by team and member — but the evidence never evidences assignments semantics, workload/capacity planning, dependencies or guest/client permissions, so I can't credit the first-class team-planning anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
Eight shiny views including Chat and Gantt, but not one confirmed fact about task assignment, comments, dependencies, workload or guest/client access — the evidence can't even show where a second person fits beyond a chat pane. Multi-project management appears only as Business-plan marketing copy, so I can't credit team-level planning. 1 2
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
Over 100 customizable real-time reports slicable by project, team and member in a dashboard, plus activity audit on Business, is genuine cross-project reporting; however, time, budget and utilization depth and any export path (CSV, scheduled delivery) are entirely unevidenced. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
100+ ready-made reports in a real-time dashboard customizable 'by project, team, members or any other combination' is genuine cross-project configurability. But exports, budget/utilization depth, scheduled delivery and API access to metrics are all unevidenced, capping it below the 8 anchor. 1
The Enterprise Architect
Over 100 customizable real-time reports on a dashboard covering project/team/member combinations is genuinely cross-project. No evidence of time, budget or utilization depth, and the only export path evidenced is the API — which sits behind the Business plan. 1 2
The UX Purist
Over 100 ready-made reports in a real-time dashboard, customizable by project, team or member, sits above the fixed-status tier — but no export path, no budget and no utilization reporting appear anywhere, so the dashboard can answer but can't hand you the file. 1
The Integrator
100+ customizable real-time reports by project, team or any member combination is genuine cross-project reporting with more than 'basic filters' — but nothing evidences an export path, and time, budget and utilization metrics are absent from the evidence entirely. A dashboard I can't get data out of is only half a product; the only hinted exit is the Business-tier API, whose scope is unstated. 1 2
The Skeptic
'100+ ready-made reports' in a customizable dashboard is better than fixed status views, but there is zero evidence of export, time tracking, budgets or utilization — and the API that might extract data is paywalled to the €21 Business plan. A dashboard you can't get numbers out of is a screensaver. 1 2
Integrations
panel disagrees
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
Real one-click import paths from Trello, Asana and Microsoft To Do plus CSV, and 1500+ Zapier connections, are strong — but the public API is paywalled to Business and above, and native calendar/comms hooks and webhooks are unevidenced, capping it below rubric level 8. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Zapier with 1500+ tools plus real import paths from Trello, Asana, Microsoft To Do and CSV cover automation and migration well. But no native calendar/Slack/storage integrations or webhooks are evidenced, and the API sits behind the €21 Business plan — at 3 seats on Plus I'd get no API at all. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Real import paths from Trello, Asana and Microsoft To Do plus 1500+ Zapier connections make a credible migration and automation story. But no native catalogue or webhooks are evidenced, and the API is gated to Business and above — entry tiers are closer to a closed box, and exit-via-API has a price floor. 1 2
The UX Purist
Genuine connective tissue: 1500+ Zapier apps and 1-click migration from Trello, Asana, Microsoft To Do plus CSV — but the API is gated to the €21 Business plan, a small team on Plus gets none of it, and no webhooks or native calendar/Slack hooks are evidenced. 1 2
The Integrator
Zapier with 1500+ tools and honest 1-click migration from Trello, Asana and Microsoft To Do plus CSV is a stack-friendly showing that covers the automation-platform and competitor-import anchors. But the API is paywalled to Business and above, and webhooks, native calendar/comms/storage integrations and any API documentation are entirely absent from the evidence. 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
Self-serve tiers are publicly priced and 1-click migration promising existing work 'in minutes' from three competitors suggests fast time-to-value, but nothing in the evidence evidences a trial, its payment-detail terms, templates or guided setup — the friction-reducers are all marketing claims. 1 2
The Bootstrapper
Self-serve tiers with printed prices and 1-click migration promising existing work in 'minutes' make a same-day start plausible without a sales call. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates, or trial terms — whether the trial demands payment details is silent — so the under-an-hour bar of an 8 can't be confirmed. 1 2
The Enterprise Architect
Self-serve, publicly priced tiers plus 1-click migration that gets existing work in 'minutes' point to a fast start. No evidence of guided setup, templates or trial terms, so I can't credit the frictionless end of the scale. 1 2
The UX Purist
Importers that migrate existing work 'in minutes' are exactly the fast path I measure with a stopwatch — a Trello refugee lands on a full board, not an empty screen. Docked because the evidence is silent on guided setup, templates, and whether the trial demands payment details. 1 2
The Integrator
'Migrated in minutes' importers from the big three competitors plus publicly priced self-serve tiers point to fast time-to-value for a team already living in another tool. But the evidence is silent on trial terms, guided setup and templates, so I can't credit the guided, payment-free path. 1 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
A German GmbH with a Mannheim register number, German VAT ID, named CEO and Baden-Württemberg jurisdiction claiming Germany-based servers earns more than the paperwork-only anchor — but the hosting provider is not stated, ownership control is unconfirmed, and the privacy policy capture yielded no public DPA, no subprocessor list and no deletion guarantee; residency is asserted, not verifiable, so rubric level 8 is out of reach. 1 3 4
The Bootstrapper
Axonic GmbH, Karlsruhe — Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 110424, German VAT ID, German CEO — is about as verifiably European as vendors get, with a homepage commitment to Germany-based servers. The captured privacy policy yielded no DPA text or subprocessor list, though, so the documented-exposure bar of an 8 isn't evidenced; this score rests on the entity, not assertions alone. 1 4
The Enterprise Architect
A German GmbH — registered at Amtsgericht Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg jurisdiction — claiming GDPR compliance with data on German servers is the right foundation. But residency is a homepage assertion, not a contractual fact, and the evidence shows no public DPA, no subprocessor list and unconfirmed ownership; that documentation gap is what procurement will hold against it. 4 1
The UX Purist
A German GmbH with a Karlsruhe address, Mannheim register entry, German VAT ID and named German CEO, plus data claimed on Germany-based servers — but ownership control, hosting provider, a DPA and any subprocessor list are all unevidenced, so residency rests on marketing copy rather than contract. 1 4
The Integrator
This is a German GmbH with a Mannheim register entry, German VAT ID, German CEO and German-court jurisdiction claiming Germany-based servers — substance, not paperwork. But the residency claim is homepage marketing, not a contract; no public DPA, subprocessor list or hosting provider is evidenced, so documented exposure fails and it stops short of the 8 anchor. 1 4
The Skeptic
The German GmbH is real and checkable — Karlsruhe address, Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 110424, German VAT ID — but every data claim is homepage marketing ('Germany based servers') with the hosting provider unnamed, no DPA quote, no subprocessor list, and ownership unconfirmed. Their own privacy policy contributed zero confirmed facts, which is exactly the documentation vacuum a skeptic worries about. 1 3 4
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
24/7 availability, sub-24-hour resolution promises and a German phone number are strong support claims, but 'Premium support' on Business implies tier gating, and the evidence contains no evidence of a help center, onboarding guides or a changelog at all. 1 2 4
The Bootstrapper
A published phone number, 24/7 availability and a 'solved in less than 24 hours' commitment are better channels than most entry plans get. But the evidence evidences no help center, guides or changelog at all, and 'Premium support' gated to Business signals support quality depends on the plan. 1 2 4
The Enterprise Architect
Support claims are strong — 24/7 availability, a published German phone number, every request resolved within 24 hours. But there is zero evidence of a help center, onboarding docs or a changelog, and 'Premium support' appearing only on Business suggests the good support is tiered. 1 4 2
The UX Purist
24/7 availability, sub-24-hour resolution and a real phone number are fair claims, but 'Premium support' is a Business upsell and the evidence contains zero evidence of a help center, onboarding guides or changelog — the learning surface is a black hole, and software that can't teach itself earns no better. 1 2 4
The Integrator
A published commitment ('every support request is solved in less than 24 hours') with 24/7 availability and a public German phone number is a solid support surface. But the evidence evidences no help center or documentation at all — for a product whose API sits behind a paid tier, an undocumented surface is a real problem — and 'Premium support' on Business implies quality gated by plan. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
'Every request is resolved within 24 hours' is a homepage promise, not a commitment — the actual SLA and 'Premium support' only surface at Business/Enterprise. Not a single captured page evidences a help center, changelog or docs of any kind; a German phone number is nice but doesn't unstick a user at 2am. 1 2 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 Bootstrapper
Plus €8 (max 10 users, stated), Team €12, Business €21 per seat, monthly billing, VAT exclusion printed on the page, and a stated 16% annual discount — I can price 3 seats and 30 seats without talking to anyone. 2
The UX Purist
All three self-serve tiers carry plain monthly per-seat prices (€8/€12/€21) with the up-to-16% annual difference and VAT exclusion stated outright; only Enterprise hides behind 'Individual'. A buyer can compute the invoice before talking to anyone. 2
The Integrator
Every self-serve tier is fully priced per seat per month, the VAT exclusion is stated outright ('All prices are excluding VAT') and the annual saving is quantified at 16% rather than hidden. 2
The Skeptic
All three self-serve tiers priced per seat per month, VAT exclusion stated in plain text ('All prices are excluding VAT'), and the annual discount quantified — the rare page where the headline is the number. The only weasels are 'up to 16%' and the genuinely custom Enterprise tier, both of which rubric level 8 tolerates. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 4 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 Sep 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement is marketing copy on the homepage rather than the privacy policy (whose excerpt names no server location), and the GDPR page [S5] also commits to adjusting transfer mechanisms 'wenn wir Ihre Daten außerhalb der EU weitergeben', so non-EU transfers are not explicitly ruled out.
- 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.
- 11 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 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
- 2 legal 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 product 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage zenkit.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page zenkit.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy zenkit.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice zenkit.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page zenkit.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration depth — found from sitemap help.zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting — found from sitemap help.zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting — found from sitemap help.zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations — found from sitemap zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations — found from sitemap zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap help.zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Onboarding effort — found from sitemap help.zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Support & documentation — found from sitemap zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Support & documentation — found from sitemap help.zenkit.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →