Compare StoriesOnBoard and Team.Do - Jul 2022
Compare PricingWe publish unbiased reviews. Our opinions are our own and are not influenced by payments from advertisers. This content is reader-supported, which means if you leave your details with us we may earn a commission. Learn why ITQlick is free .
Bottom Line: Which is Better - StoriesOnBoard or Team.Do?
StoriesOnBoard is more expensive to implement (TCO) than Team.Do, and Team.Do is rated higher (81/100) than StoriesOnBoard (74/100). Team.Do offers users more features (5) than StoriesOnBoard (0). There is a clear winner in this case and it is Team.Do!
Looking for the right Task Management solution for your business? Buyers are primarily concerned about the real total cost of implementation (TCO), the full list of features, vendor reliability, user reviews, and the pros and cons. In this article we compare between the two software products:
DevMads Vs. Thrive
DevMads: User story mapping tool that helps you understand the user needs, prioritize the right ideas and collaborate everyone around your user story map.
Thrive: Currently Founder and Product Designer at Thrive, a fast growing cloud software company based in the UK. In what seems a lifetime ago I had a successful career as a graphic designer. Thrive was born from my drive to create beautiful but functional software. I'm focussed with an analytical mind, enjoying the role of problem solver.
Who is more expensive? StoriesOnBoard or Team.Do?
The real total cost of ownership (TCO) of Task Management software includes the software license, subscription fees, software training, customizations, hardware (if needed), maintenance and support and other related services. When calculating the TCO, it's important to add all of these ”hidden costs” as well. We prepared a TCO (Total Cost) calculator for StoriesOnBoard and Team.Do.
StoriesOnBoard price starts at $19 per user/month , On a scale between 1 to 10 StoriesOnBoard is rated 2, which is much lower than the average cost of Task Management software. Team.Do price starts at $9 per user/month , When comparing Team.Do to its competitors, the software is rated 2 - much lower than the average Task Management software cost.
Bottom line: StoriesOnBoard cost is around the same cost of Team.Do.
Which software includes more/better features?
We've compared StoriesOnBoard Vs. Team.Do based on some of the most important and required Task Management features.
StoriesOnBoard: We are still working to collect the list of features for StoriesOnBoard.
Team.Do: Workflow, Collaboration, Resource Management, Time Tracking, Business Process.
Target customer size
StoriesOnBoard's typical customers include: Small, medium and large size businesses, and Team.Do's target customer size include: SMBs.
Compare specifications
StoriesOnBoard Specifications
ITQlick Score: | 74/100 |
---|---|
ITQlick Rating: |
|
Pricing: | 2/10 - low cost |
Category: | Task Management -> StoriesOnBoard review |
Company: | DevMads |
Pricing: | starts at $19 per user/month |
Typical customers: | Small, medium and large size businesses |
Platforms: | Cloud |
Links: | StoriesOnBoard review, StoriesOnBoard pricing, StoriesOnBoard alternatives |
Team.Do Specifications
ITQlick Score: | 81/100 |
---|---|
ITQlick Rating: |
|
Pricing: | 2/10 - low cost |
Category: | Task Management -> Team.Do review |
Company: | Thrive |
Pricing: | starts at $9 per user/month |
Typical customers: | SMBs |
Platforms: | Desktop, Mobile, Cloud |
Links: | Team.Do review, Team.Do pricing, Team.Do alternatives |
Compare features
StoriesOnBoard: 0 Features
Team.Do: 5 Features
Auditor - Shlomi Lavi
Shlomi Lavi is an entrepreneur and founder of ITQlick.com. He holds a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) in Information Systems Engineering from Ben Gurion University in Israel. Shlomi brings 17 years of global IT and IS management experience as a consultant and implementation expert for small, medium and large-sized (global) companies. Shlomi’s goal is to share the best knowledge and news about information systems so you can make smarter buying decisions for your business.