whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

AI Agents & Assistants

Microsoft 365 Copilot

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Microsoft Corporation · learn.microsoft.com

Compare with Gemini for Google Workspace → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Microsoft 365 Copilot: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Microsoft 365 Copilot: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Microsoft 365 Copilot at a glance

Vendor
Microsoft Corporation
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Microsoft 365 Copilot 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Microsoft 365 Copilot is an AI assistant add-on on top of Microsoft 365, and the bench scored it strongest on data use and training and on integrations and knowledge, both at 6-8: judges cited documented commitments that prompts, responses and Graph-accessed data are not used to train foundation models, a downloadable data protection addendum, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certifications, and a connectors API whose grounded answers store citations to their sources. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 28 Oct 2026. all sources

Microsoft 365 Copilot alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Customer-Service Director

Weighted verdict

Runs a contact centre with forty agents and wants half the routine calls and chats answered by an AI agent. Wants handover to a human with the full context, actions in the order and ticket systems, evaluation before go-live, and a price per conversation the CFO can forecast.

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

Scored by The Customer-Service Director

Panel median The Customer-Service Director This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Customer-Service Director
Data use, training & retention 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Models & processing location 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
Admin, identity & access controls 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations, connectors & knowledge 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Agent capabilities & guardrails 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5

Data use, training & retention

How this is scored

What happens to prompts, uploaded files, connected data and outputs: whether any of it trains a model (the vendor's or a model provider's), how long it is kept and where logs live, whether zero-retention is available, and whether a data processing agreement covers it.

0 — No statement on training or retention; the privacy policy is a website policy that does not cover the product.

3 — A general statement that business data is "not used for training", with no word on retention, on the model providers behind the product or on logs.

5 — Business data excluded from training by contract, retention periods stated for chats and files, and a DPA offered to business customers.

8 — No-training commitments stated for the vendor and every model provider it routes to, retention configurable by the admin (including deletion of chat history), zero-data-retention terms with the model providers named, and abuse-monitoring retention described.

10 — Data use fully accounted for: training, retention, logging and abuse monitoring stated per model provider, customer-controlled retention and deletion with an audit trail, outputs and connected data treated as customer data in the DPA, and an independent audit (SOC 2, ISO 27001 or ISO 42001) covering the product.

Report an error

The Customer-Service Director

The product documentation states prompts, responses and data reached through Microsoft Graph are not used to train the foundation models behind Copilot, describes abuse monitoring as opted out, shows users deleting their own Copilot history and admins managing stored interactions with Purview, and backs this with a downloadable data protection addendum plus ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certifications. The general privacy statement, though, says Microsoft "may use your data to develop and train our AI models", so the captured pages give different statements on training, and I found no public information on zero-retention terms with the named model providers. 3 4 5 6

Report an error

Models & processing location

How this is scored

Which models sit behind the product and who runs them, where inference and storage happen, whether the customer can pin processing to the EU, choose or exclude model providers, bring its own model or key, or run the product in its own cloud or on premises.

0 — The models behind the product and the processing location are not stated.

3 — The model family is named, but where inference runs and through which provider (the model maker, a hyperscaler, the vendor) is unstated.

5 — Models and their providers named, with an EU processing option stated for storage and at least the default model.

8 — Each available model listed with provider and inference region, EU-only processing selectable by the admin and enforced across models, model providers excludable, and bring-your-own-key or own-cloud deployment documented.

10 — Processing fully under the customer's control and documented: EU-only or on-premises inference for every feature including agents and connectors, open-weight or self-hosted models supported, data flows per feature published, and a residency commitment in the contract rather than on a marketing page.

Report an error

The Customer-Service Director

OpenAI and Anthropic are named as the model providers behind the product, and for EU tenants the EU Data Boundary keeps traffic inside the EU for language-model processing, a residency commitment carried in the Product Terms since March 2024. Anthropic's models are documented as excluded from that boundary, and I found no public information on excluding a provider, enforcing EU processing across every model, or bringing our own model or key. 3 4

Report an error

Admin, identity & access controls

How this is scored

What the IT department controls: SSO and SCIM provisioning, roles and groups, which models, agents and connectors each group may use, retrieval that respects the permissions of the source system, audit logs, usage reporting, and policies such as data-loss prevention — and whether reporting on staff use is scoped and documented.

0 — No admin features documented; accounts are individual sign-ups.

3 — A team workspace with an owner and member invitations, but no SSO, no roles and no audit log.

5 — SSO, admin and member roles, user management, and an admin view of usage.

8 — SAML/OIDC SSO with SCIM provisioning, group-based permissions for models, agents and connectors, retrieval that inherits source-system permissions, exportable audit logs, and usage analytics with documented scope.

10 — Governance a regulated company can operate: fine-grained policies (DLP, content filters, prompt and output logging rules), audit logs streamed to a SIEM, per-agent ownership and approval, usage reporting that can be aggregated or pseudonymised for works-council agreements, and every admin action logged.

Report an error

The Customer-Service Director

Retrieval provably respects source permissions — Copilot only surfaces data a user has at least view rights to, the semantic index honors the identity boundary, and Purview sensitivity labels are honored — and admins can block agents and switch off connected experiences, with tenant isolation through Entra and role-based access control. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, group-level permissions per agent or connector, or exportable audit logs of Copilot use. 3 4 7

Report an error

Integrations, connectors & knowledge

How this is scored

How the product reaches company knowledge and systems: connectors to file stores, wikis, mail, CRM, ticketing and ERP, how fast and how completely they sync, the API, support for open protocols such as MCP, and how the assistant cites the sources it answers from.

0 — No integrations; users paste text or upload files one at a time.

3 — File upload and one or two connectors (for example a drive), with no API and no statement on sync or citations.

5 — A connector library covering the common file stores, wikis and collaboration tools, answers citing sources, and a documented API.

8 — Connectors to file stores, wikis, mail, CRM and ticketing with incremental sync, custom connectors or MCP support, an API and webhooks for embedding assistants and agents in other tools, and source citations on every grounded answer.

10 — The product sits in the company's systems: read and write connectors with documented scopes, MCP servers and clients, contact-centre or telephony integration where relevant, a knowledge layer that can be audited and corrected, and the data, agents and configuration exportable when the customer leaves.

Report an error

The Customer-Service Director

There is a real connector framework — connectors that pull external data into Microsoft Graph for grounding, a documented connectors API with a five-step build, Graph REST APIs, SDKs, change notifications and Teams bots — and every grounded answer carries citations that are stored with the interaction. No CRM or ticketing connector is named on the captured pages, sync frequency is not stated, and I found no public information on MCP support. 3 7 8

Report an error

Agent capabilities & guardrails

How this is scored

What an agent can actually do and where it stops: multi-step tasks, tool use and actions in other systems, scheduling and triggers, human approval before consequential actions, run logs, evaluation and testing before release, and the limits the vendor states rather than hides.

0 — No agents; the product is a chat window, whatever the marketing says.

3 — Saved prompts or custom assistants with instructions and files, but no actions in other systems and no run history.

5 — Agents that call tools or APIs and run multi-step tasks, built without code, with a log of each run.

8 — Agents that act in connected systems with scoped permissions, human approval configurable per action, triggers and schedules, test and evaluation tooling before release, and documented limits and failure handling.

10 — Agents a business can put in production and account for: versioning and staged rollout, evaluation against test sets, monitoring of quality and cost per agent, handover to a human with full context, every action attributable to the agent and the person who deployed it, and the vendor's own statement of what agents must not be trusted with.

Report an error

The Customer-Service Director

Copilot Studio builds agents on a visual canvas with pre-built tools that deploy across Copilot, Teams, web and third-party messaging channels, agents can be created, tested and deployed from developer tooling, admins control which agents are allowed, and guardrails such as jailbreak and prompt-injection classifiers, harm filters and protected-material detection are documented. What I cannot find is what my contact centre lives or dies on: human approval before consequential actions, run logs, triggers and schedules, evaluation against test sets before go-live, and handover to a human agent with the full conversation context. 3 7 9

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where customer data is hosted, and who the subprocessors are — model providers above all, then hosting, search, telephony and email. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; for an AI product the model provider is a subprocessor, so a European interface over a non-European model counts as such.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors (including model providers) unnamed.

3 — A privacy policy exists, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the model providers behind the product are not named as subprocessors.

5 — EU hosting stated and an EU contracting entity, but prompts reach non-EU model providers or other subprocessors without a stated safeguard or EU region.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, every subprocessor listed with its location including model providers, EU inference available, and a DPA offered.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and model processing, every subprocessor European or optional, data export and deletion documented, and a security or certification statement published rather than implied.

Report an error

The Customer-Service Director

For EU tenants the EU Data Boundary commits to storing and processing customer data inside the EU, a commitment in the Product Terms since March 2024, with a downloadable data protection addendum and Data Privacy Framework safeguards. But the vendor is Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Anthropic model processing is documented as outside the boundary, some data continues to transfer out in limited circumstances, and the United States is named among storage locations. 3 4 5 6

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a company can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per seat, per agent, per conversation or per usage unit, what is included in each tier, usage limits and overage, which models, connectors or agents cost extra, minimum seats and term.

0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.

3 — A starting price or "from" figure exists, but usage limits, included models and what scales the cost are unclear.

5 — Prices per tier are public with the main inclusions, but usage limits, overage, agent runs or enterprise features (SSO, audit logs, EU processing) are unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with seat or usage units, usage limits and overage rates, add-ons listed, minimum seats and term stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of seats, agents or conversations, with every usage rate, model surcharge, add-on and support tier and the cancellation and data-return terms published.

Report an error

The Customer-Service Director

The licensing pages document structure in detail — eligible Office 365 plans, an SMB add-on with an annual commitment capped at 300 users, education purchases through EES or CSP, and government cloud availability — but I found no public information on actual prices: no per-seat figure, let alone the per-conversation price my CFO needs to forecast the annual cost. 2 7

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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 — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Microsoft 365 Copilot

Is Microsoft 365 Copilot European?

No. whats-best.ai classifies Microsoft 365 Copilot as Rest of world.

Where does Microsoft 365 Copilot store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.

Does Microsoft 365 Copilot have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Microsoft 365 Copilot?

As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Langdock (4/5), Dust (3.5/5) and Unique AI (3.5/5) highest among the other 15 AI Agents & Assistants products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Langdock (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Microsoft 365 Copilot alternatives.

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 Microsoft 365 Copilot? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (9)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Product documentation (overview) learn.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Licensing and pricing documentation learn.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Data, privacy and security documentation learn.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 EU Data Boundary documentation learn.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Data protection addendum www.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Privacy policy www.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap developer.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Integrations, connectors & knowledge — found from sitemap developer.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Agent capabilities & guardrails — found from sitemap developer.microsoft.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →