Foco vs Trello for multiple clients: which tool fits your workflow better

If you manage tasks for multiple clients or jobs at the same time, you’ve likely tried Trello or similar tools. But when the workload grows, the differences between Foco and Trello for multiple clients become clear: organizing a single project isn’t the same as handling dozens of tasks from different sources (each with its own color) in one place. Here’s a comparison to help you choose the best option for your needs.

1. Workspaces vs. separate boards

In Trello, each client or project is typically a separate board. This forces you to switch between tabs or windows to see all your pending tasks, fragmenting your overview. Foco, on the other hand, groups all your work in one space: each job is a container with a name and color, and you can see tasks from all of them at once in Panorama mode (each task shows its job’s color) or filter just one client’s tasks in Foco mode. The key difference between Foco and Trello for multiple clients here is that Foco avoids constant context-switching: you don’t need to open five boards to know what’s due today.

2. Views: beyond Kanban

Trello focuses on the Kanban model, which is useful for teams but limiting if you need other perspectives. Foco offers three views you can switch between with a button: List (groups tasks by dates like Today, This Week, or No Date), Kanban (customizable columns with drag-and-drop on desktop), and Calendar (week or month view, with events synced from Google Calendar or Outlook). For those managing multiple jobs, the List view is especially practical: it shows in one place which tasks from each client are due today, without having to check board by board.

3. Task fields: priorities, recurrences, and reminders

• In Trello, fields like priority or due dates require power-ups or extensions, complicating setup.
• Foco includes these fields by default: priority (normal, important, urgent), recurrence (daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly), reminders (minutes before due), and estimated duration in minutes. Plus, when you complete a recurring task, the next occurrence is created automatically.
• Foco’s voice capture automatically detects dates, times, and priorities from dictated text, a feature Trello doesn’t offer without external integrations.

4. Collaboration: assigning tasks without full access

Trello lets you invite collaborators to an entire board, which can be overkill if you only want to assign a single task. Foco solves this with two levels: you invite people to a job (they only see that client’s tasks) or share an individual task via a public link, without granting access to the rest of your system. This is useful for freelancers working with occasional clients who don’t need full access.

5. When to choose each tool

• Choose Trello if: you manage long-term projects with large teams, need complex automations (like Butler), or prefer a pure Kanban model. It’s great for a single project with many phases but less practical for seeing all your tasks from multiple clients at once.
• Choose Foco if: you juggle several jobs or clients simultaneously (along with personal tasks) and need a system that shows everything in one place, with flexible views and features like voice capture or automatic recurrence. Foco is designed to avoid fragmentation: you don’t have to open five boards to know what’s due today, nor waste time setting up power-ups for basic functions like reminders.

6. Pricing: what each plan includes

Trello offers a free plan with unlimited boards but limited features (like additional views or automations). Paid plans start at $5/user/month. Foco, on the other hand, has a permanent free plan with unlimited jobs and tasks, List and Kanban views, and voice capture (with 5 uses per month). The Foco plan (4 €/month) adds calendar view, sync with Google Calendar/Outlook, and collaboration, while Plus (20 €/month) includes unlimited AI for features like Ráfaga. The price difference between Foco and Trello for multiple clients makes sense if you value having all features integrated in one place, without relying on extensions.