Skip to content
SlateIndex
TeamworkMost tools track work. We make it profitable.
vs
ZapierBuild and scale AI workflows and agents across 9,000+ apps
Comparison · Project Management · weekly run Nov 3

Teamwork vs Zapier

Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?

The short answer

Teamwork is the stronger AI pick in Project Management: it has a visibility score of 9.6 versus 3.3 for Zapier, and ranks ahead in 100% of the answers that name both.

Choose Teamwork if…

  • You want the brand AI engines rank higher (9.6 vs 3.3)
  • You want a lower entry price ($9.99 vs $19.99)
  • You need ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or SOC 2 Type 2 coverage
  • Per seat pricing suits your budget better than usage-based

Choose Zapier if…

  • AI answers describe it more positively (29% vs 12% positive)
  • You need SOC 2 Type II or SOC 3 or GDPR or CCPA coverage
  • You prefer a larger, established vendor (501–1,000 employees)
  • Usage-based pricing suits your budget better than per seat

AI visibility side by side

Latest weekly run · Nov 3

Metric Teamwork Zapier
Visibility score9.6%3.3%
Change vs last weekNewNew
Rank in Project Management#11#23
Share of voice2.5%1.7%
Mentions this run159
Positive in AI answers12%29%

The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.

Visibility score trend

Weekly runs over the last 60 days

0%25%50%75%100%Nov 3Teamwork 10%

Teamwork 0pp · Zapier 0pp over 0 weekly runs.

Engine by engine

Teamwork leads on 2 of 3 engines

ChatGPT
5.6%
3%
AI Mode
1.1%
3.3%
Perplexity
22.2%
3.7%
TeamworkZapier

Head to head in AI answers

1 engine answers name both brands

1Teamwork ranked higher
0Zapier ranked higher
PromptEngineTeamworkZapier
Official website of the top project management tool vendors ChatGPT#14#20

Features, pricing & fit

DimensionTeamworkZapier
Pricing modelPer seatUsage-based
Entry priceFree; paid from $9.99 per seat / moFree; paid from $19.99 / mo
Free planYesYes
DeploymentCloud-hosted SaaS on Amazon Web Services, with US or EU data hosting.Multi-tenant cloud
Integrations—9000+
ComplianceISO/IEC 27001:2022, SOC 2 Type 2SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3, GDPR, CCPA
SupportPremium support, Dedicated customer success manager (Enterprise), Free expert training, Onboarding servicesEmail support, Live chat on Professional plans from the 2,000 task tier, Priority support on Team and Enterprise, Technical Account Manager on set thresholds or as an add-on
Founded19992011
HeadquartersCork, IrelandSan Francisco, CA
Employees201–500501–1,000
FundingGrowth investment from Bregal MilestoneEquity crowdfunding
Best forAgencies, consultancies, IT services and implementation teams that bill clients for project work.Businesses from first-time founders to the Fortune 500 that want AI and automation across many apps.

Plans side by side

Teamwork

Free$0per user/month billed yearly
Basics$9.99per user/month billed yearly
Accelerate$24.99per user/month billed yearly
OptimizeCustomper user/month billed yearly, contact sales
EnterpriseCustomcustom pricing, contact sales
Teamwork pricing

Zapier

Free$0month
Professional$19.99month (starting from)
Team$69month (starting from)
EnterpriseCustomcontact sales
Zapier pricing

Pros and cons

Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand

Teamwork

  • Client-project, time-tracking, and profitability capabilities suit agencies needing billing
  • Rated Editors' Choice by PCMag at 4.5/5 and recommended for client services
  • Included in strong general project management shortlist

    Zapier

    • Easy to use and integrates with thousands of apps
    • Powerful AI agent and workflow automation
    • Strong user ratings on G2 and Capterra
    • Widely adopted general integration and workflow tool
    • Free tier with no time limit or credit card needed
    • Free plans have limited monthly activities
    • Not a standalone marketing automation platform

    Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run

    Cite as: SlateIndex, “Teamwork vs Zapier”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/teamwork-vs-zapier, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.