Document Management (DMS)
Microsoft SharePoint
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Microsoft Corporation · www.microsoft.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
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 SharePoint at a glance
- Vendor
- Microsoft Corporation
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Microsoft SharePoint 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. SharePoint scores strongest as a public platform and weakest at document intake. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
SharePoint scores strongest as a public platform and weakest at document intake. Audit-proof archiving scores sit at 4 with no spread — compliant cold storage, retention with alerts and scheduled deletions, legal hold — though HIPAA, GDPR and SOX are the named regulations and we found no public information on GoBD. Document workflows scores run 4 to 6, carried by the developer pages: Graph REST APIs with SDKs, Teams bots and a browser playground. Capture and indexing sits at the floor, 1 to 2: the pages show document libraries and search, and we found no public information on scanning, OCR or reading XRechnung and ZUGFeRD. Sovereignty is the genuine split, 0 to 3 — the widest range — over weight, not findings: judges report the same facts, ownership with Microsoft Corporation in Redmond and EU customers contracting with Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited, and the same absence of public information on storage locations, subprocessors, or where Copilot's AI processing touches document content, and differ on how much that should weigh. Pricing transparency scores 2 to 3, with no price figure in any capture.
Speaks for it
- audit-proof archiving scores sit at 4 with no spread, on compliant cold storage with retention alerts, scheduled deletions, legal hold and searchable archives
- document workflows scores run 4 to 6 — the 6 from the IT Integrator — on a public developer platform of Graph REST APIs, SDKs, Teams bots and Graph Explorer in the browser
- versioning and permissions scores of 3 to 4 rest on versioned document libraries with access control plus Microsoft Entra ID identity management
- search and portability scores of 3 to 4 reflect natural-language search in Copilot and Copilot Search over content that stays searchable when archived
- phone and web support runs 24/7 in all three plans, which cover 1–300 users with 1 TB of cloud storage per user
Held against it
- capture and indexing scores fall to 1–2, and we found no public information on scanning, OCR, mailbox intake, or reading XRechnung and ZUGFeRD as structured data
- we found no public information on check-in and check-out, record-level permissions, or an audit log of reads, changes and exports
- we found no public information on GoBD, a Verfahrensdokumentation, an auditor's report, or how archived documents are made immutable, with HIPAA, GDPR and SOX the named regulations
- we found no public information on a documented bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail, or on exit terms when a contract ends
- the plan comparison names three editions, 1–300 users and 1 TB per user, but we found no price figure in any capture, and agents require an Azure subscription priced by consumption
Best for
- You have in-house developers and want to build document handling on a documented REST platform with SDKs, code samples and a developer program that may qualify for a free, renewable subscription with sample data
- You need cold storage for inactive content with legal hold, searchable archives and automated retention under HIPAA, GDPR or SOX
- You already run Microsoft 365 and want versioned document libraries, access control and natural-language search inside its bundle of more than ten apps
Avoid if
- Your documents arrive on paper or as XRechnung and ZUGFeRD e-invoices and you need built-in capture, since the pages document storage and sync rather than intake
- Your archive must stand up to a German tax audit, where the pages name HIPAA, GDPR and SOX and we found no public information on GoBD or a Verfahrensdokumentation
- You must prove who read, changed or exported a specific record, where the documented access control covers libraries rather than records
- You need a computable price, or confirmed data residency and a subprocessor list, before you can sign
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 1 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 2 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.5 of 5 |
Capture, OCR & indexing
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How documents get in and become findable: scanning and email intake, OCR, classification and metadata extraction, and whether incoming e-invoices (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD) are read as structured data rather than as pictures.
0 — Manual upload only; no OCR, no metadata beyond file name and folder.
3 — Upload, drag-and-drop and scan import with OCR mentioned, but indexing is manual and no word on email intake or e-invoice formats.
5 — Scanner, email and folder intake, full-text OCR, document types with metadata fields, and automatic extraction of common fields (date, sender, amount) documented.
8 — AI- or rule-based classification and field extraction with confidence and a validation step, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD read as structured data, mailbox and Microsoft 365 intake, and duplicate detection documented.
10 — Capture is engineered and shown: classification and extraction trainable per document type, validation queues, e-invoice validation against the standard, intake channels listed with their limits, and where AI processing runs (location, model provider) stated.
The GoBD Auditor
The captured pages describe document libraries with metadata, Microsoft Lists and searchability, which is more than bare file storage, yet they say nothing about how documents get in. We found no public information on scanning or mailbox intake, OCR, classification and field extraction, or the reading of electronic invoices as structured data — for a tax-relevant archive, capture is undocumented. 1 2
The Records Manager
Document libraries with versioning and file management between OneDrive and SharePoint are the only intake the captured pages document, plus a developer mail API for building apps that process email. We found no public information on OCR, scan import, classification, metadata extraction at capture, or whether XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read as structured data — for a filing plan that must be set when the document arrives, that is almost nothing to work with. 2 4
The IT Integrator
The captured pages document document libraries with version history and access control, OneDrive/SharePoint file management and offline files, but say nothing about making documents findable beyond storage. We found no public information on OCR, scanning or mailbox intake, on classification and metadata extraction, or on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD e-invoice handling. As far as the evidence goes, documents arrive by storage and sync, not by engineered capture. 2
The Mittelstand Owner
I found no public information on OCR, on scan or email intake, or on reading XRechnung and ZUGFeRD as structured data — for my incoming e-invoices that is the entire point of capture. The captured pages show document libraries, lists and search surfaces, which is storage and sharing, not capture. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages describe document libraries, real-time co-authoring and a connectors pipeline that ingests external items into a registered schema with semantic labels, but say nothing about scanning, OCR, classification with validation, or reading XRechnung and ZUGFeRD as structured data. For a system expected to hold personnel files and health certificates, I found no public information on how paper documents or incoming invoices actually get in. 2 4
The Skeptic
The captured pages show document libraries and OneDrive file management, but we found no public information on scanning, OCR, email intake, classification with a validation step, or reading XRechnung and ZUGFeRD as structured data. The connector pages describe ingesting external data for search and Copilot, which is not document capture; with not a word on how a paper invoice becomes a findable record, this sits just above the floor. 2 4
Versioning, permissions & audit trail
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who may see and change which document, what happened to it, and whether earlier states can be recovered: version history, check-in and check-out, role- and attribute-based rights, and an audit trail of reads and changes.
0 — Files overwrite each other; rights only at folder level or not described; no log of who did what.
3 — Version history and folder permissions exist, but no check-out, no record-level rights and no documented audit log.
5 — Version history with restore, check-in and check-out, roles and groups with document-type or record-level rights, and an audit log of changes documented.
8 — Metadata-driven permissions (by department, client or confidentiality), audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions, single sign-on and directory sync (Entra ID, LDAP) documented, and administrators' own actions logged.
10 — Access is provable: the audit trail is tamper-evident and exportable, permission changes are themselves versioned, field-level rights and need-to-know access for HR or legal records documented, and the log retention period stated.
The GoBD Auditor
Document libraries with version history and access control are stated, and the plan page names Entra ID identity management and Purview information protection. We found no public information on check-out, record-level or metadata-driven permissions, an audit trail of reads, exports and deletions, or the retention period of any log — without a documented audit log I cannot call access provable. 2
The Records Manager
Versioned document libraries with access control and Microsoft Entra ID for identity are documented, which earns the basic level, and a separate Microsoft 365 Backup product promises restoration of lost or corrupted data. But we found no public information on version restore, check-in and check-out, record-level rights, or an audit log of reads and changes — and without that log I cannot prove who touched a file when the 2019 contract goes missing. 2 7
The IT Integrator
Versioned document libraries with access control, easy file-sharing policies and Microsoft Entra ID for identity and access management are documented, with Microsoft Purview Information Protection in the top plan. We found no public information on check-in and check-out, on record-level or metadata-driven permissions, or on an audit log of reads, changes and exports — for my integration work, provable access history is the missing piece. 2
The Mittelstand Owner
Document libraries with version history and access control are documented, and Microsoft Entra ID in free and extended tiers gives real identity management. But I found no public information on check-out, record-level rights or an audit trail of who read or changed what, so I cannot prove to anyone what happened to a document. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
Version history with access control in document libraries is documented, and Entra ID identity management plus Purview information protection are named. But the pages show no check-in and check-out, no record-level or field-level rights for HR-type records, and no audit trail of reads, exports or deletions — exactly the evidence I would need before personnel files live here. 2
The Skeptic
Document libraries with version history and access control are documented, and Microsoft Entra ID identity management is named, but we found no public information on check-in and check-out, record-level or metadata-driven rights, or an audit log of reads, changes and exports. Version history without any documented record of who touched what is precisely the claim I have read on every homepage and seen evidenced on almost none. 2
Audit-proof archiving & retention
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
GoBD-compliant, revisionssicher archiving: immutability of archived documents, retention schedules and deletion, tax-audit data access, and the independent evidence behind the claim — scored on what is certified and documented, not on the word "GoBD-konform".
0 — No statement on archiving, retention or GoBD.
3 — "GoBD-konform" or "revisionssicher" claimed with no certificate, no description of how immutability is achieved and no retention settings documented.
5 — Archived documents documented as unchangeable, retention periods configurable per document type, deletion after expiry, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation or GoBD guidance offered.
8 — An auditor's report (IDW PS 880 or comparable) published or named with its scope and date, WORM or equivalent storage described, legal hold, GDPR deletion reconciled with retention duties, and Z1–Z3 tax-audit export documented.
10 — Archiving is evidenced end to end: current Testat with scope covering the cloud and on-premises editions as sold, retention and deletion logged and reportable, long-term formats (PDF/A) enforced, and a documented procedure for the tax audit and for moving the archive without breaking its integrity.
The GoBD Auditor
Archive is sold as compliant cold storage, with an FAQ on legal hold, whole-site and single-file archiving and searchability of archived content, plus retention policies with alerts and scheduled deletions and HIPAA, GDPR and SOX named. We found no public information on an auditor's report, on how immutability of archived documents is achieved, on retention periods per document type, or on GoBD, a Verfahrensdokumentation and a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 6 7
The Records Manager
Microsoft 365 Archive is documented as compliant cold storage, with an FAQ covering legal hold, searchable archived content and archiving of full sites or single files, and the retention pages describe automated policy enforcement with alerts and scheduled deletions under named regulations. But we found no public information on GoBD, a Verfahrensdokumentation, how immutability of archived documents is achieved, or an auditor's report — and the named regulations are HIPAA, GDPR and SOX, which is not a German tax audit. 6 7
The IT Integrator
A dedicated Microsoft 365 Archive stores inactive SharePoint content in what the page calls cost-effective, compliant cold storage, with an FAQ confirming archived content stays searchable and legal-hold items can be archived, and retention automates alerts and scheduled deletions under HIPAA, GDPR and SOX. We found no public information on GoBD or a Verfahrensdokumentation, on an auditor's report, on WORM-style storage, or on a Z1–Z3 export for a German tax audit. Without any of that, the compliance claim rests on the word 'compliant'. 6 7
The Mittelstand Owner
Retention with alerts and scheduled deletions, legal hold, and a searchable cold archive are documented, with GDPR named alongside HIPAA and SOX. I found no word on GoBD, no auditor's report, no immutability or WORM description and no Verfahrensdokumentation — for the Finanzamt that is not archiving I can rely on. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Microsoft 365 Archive is described as compliant cold storage for inactive SharePoint content, with legal hold, site- and file-level archiving and searchable archives addressed in an FAQ, and retention automation with alerts and scheduled deletions referencing HIPAA, GDPR and SOX. I found no public information on GoBD conformity, an auditor's report, how immutability of archived documents is achieved, or retention periods per document type, and the reconciliation of GDPR deletion with retention duties is not addressed. 6 7
The Skeptic
Cold storage is sold as "compliant" and retention policy enforcement with alerts and scheduled deletions is documented, with legal hold appearing as an FAQ topic, but the compliance list names HIPAA, GDPR and SOX and we found no public information on GoBD, an auditor's report, WORM-style immutability, or a tax-audit export. "Compliant" cold storage with no named German standard and no certificate behind it is a word, not proof. 6 7
Document workflows & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to a document after it arrives: approval and invoice workflows, tasks and deadlines, and the connectors that tie the DMS to ERP, accounting, DATEV, Microsoft 365 and the rest of the stack.
0 — No workflows; documents are stored and nothing else.
3 — A fixed approval or sharing step and a handful of named integrations, with no workflow designer and no API documentation.
5 — A workflow designer for approvals and invoice processing, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, Microsoft 365 or Outlook integration, and a documented REST API.
8 — Graphical workflow modelling without code, invoice workflow with ERP or DATEV handover documented, connectors for named ERP systems (SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, DATEV) with their scope, webhooks or events, and e-signature integration.
10 — Workflows are a platform: versioned workflow definitions, process reporting with throughput times, a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox, a partner marketplace of integrations with stated maintainers, and workflow history kept in the audit trail.
The GoBD Auditor
The developer pages document REST APIs, SDKs, quick starts, Graph Explorer, change notifications and Teams bots, and the bundle lists more than ten apps including Teams and Planner. We found no public information on approval or invoice workflows, a graphical workflow designer, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, or DATEV and ERP connectors with their scope. 1 4 5
The Records Manager
The developer side is genuinely documented: Microsoft Graph REST APIs with SDKs, change notifications, Teams bots, PowerShell automation, quick starts, code samples and a try-it-in-browser explorer. But we found no public information on approval or invoice workflows, a workflow designer, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, or ERP, DATEV and e-signature connectors — so what happens to a document after it arrives is left entirely to what a customer builds itself. 1 4 5
The IT Integrator
The API story is strong: Microsoft Graph offers a single REST endpoint with SDKs, PowerShell automation, Teams bots, mail processing and change notifications as webhooks, plus Graph Explorer to try the API in the browser and a free developer subscription with sample data; Copilot connectors add a documented connectors API with quick start and code samples. What I cannot integrate against: we found no public information on a workflow designer for approvals or invoice processing, or on connectors for ERP, DATEV or e-signature with a stated scope. Every integration evidenced is either Graph itself or Microsoft's own bundle apps such as Teams, Planner and Forms. 5 4 1
The Mittelstand Owner
The developer story is strong: documented REST APIs and SDKs, change notifications with Azure Event Hubs, Teams bots and more than ten bundled apps. But I found no public information on an approval or invoice workflow, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, or ERP and DATEV handover — the part I need to work without a consultant is exactly what the pages do not show. 1 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
A genuinely strong developer platform is documented: Graph REST APIs and SDKs, Teams bots, change notifications into Azure Event Hubs, code samples, a quick start and native Microsoft 365 bundling with more than ten apps. Approval and invoice workflows, a workflow designer, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, and named ERP or DATEV connectors are not documented on the captured pages. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
The developer pages document a REST API with SDKs, code samples, a browser playground, change notifications into Azure Event Hubs and Teams bots — a genuinely public platform. But we found no public information on approval or invoice workflows, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, or connectors to SAP, Dynamics or DATEV with their scope, so what happens to a document after it arrives is unevidenced despite the strong API story. 1 4 5
Search, retrieval & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Finding documents again and taking them with you: full-text and metadata search, saved searches and mobile access, and whether documents, metadata, versions and audit trail can be exported in documented formats when the contract ends.
0 — Folder browsing only; no export beyond downloading single files.
3 — Full-text search exists, but no metadata filters, and bulk export is undocumented or only on request.
5 — Full-text and metadata search with filters and saved searches, mobile or web access, and bulk export of documents with their metadata (for example CSV or XML) documented.
8 — Search across versions and attachments with permissions respected, export of documents in original format with metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure, and an import path from other DMS or file shares named.
10 — The exit is designed in: a documented complete export with schema, export available self-service at any time, the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion stated, and archives stored in open formats so a successor system can take them over intact.
The GoBD Auditor
Search is well evidenced: natural-language search in Copilot and Copilot Search, external content surfaced alongside Microsoft 365 files, and archived content that stays searchable. We found no public information on metadata filters and saved searches, on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, or on exit provisions when a contract ends. 2 4 6
The Records Manager
Copilot Search with natural-language queries, discoverability of content alongside Microsoft 365 files, web and mobile access, and an FAQ confirming archived content stays searchable are documented. But we found no public information on metadata filters and saved searches, and — the part I weigh most — no documented bulk export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail, and no exit terms or retrieval window for when the contract ends. 2 4 6
The IT Integrator
Copilot Search with natural-language retrieval, findability through Microsoft Lists and searchable archived content are documented, and web and mobile access is stated. We found no public information on metadata filters and saved searches, and — the part I weigh most — no documented bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, no import path from another DMS or file share, and no statement of a post-termination retrieval window. The exit is undocumented in everything captured. 4 2 6
The Mittelstand Owner
Search is present as Copilot Search, natural-language search over ingested content and findable lists, and archived content stays searchable. I found no public information on metadata filters and saved searches, and nothing at all on bulk export, export formats or an exit path at contract end. 2 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
Search is well evidenced — Copilot and natural-language search over ingested content, searchable archives, offline files and mobile access — though metadata filters and saved searches are not documented. Exit is the blank spot: I found no public information on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented format when a contract ends. 2 4 6
The Skeptic
Search is present, up to natural-language search in Copilot and searchable archived content, but we found no public information on metadata filters, saved searches, or a documented bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail. For a platform of this size, the captured pages saying nothing about the exit is the most telling fact on them. 2 4 6
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and its owner are, where documents and their metadata are stored and processed in the cloud edition, and who the subprocessors are — including any AI provider that reads document content. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where documents are stored, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU entity contracts, but the cloud edition runs on a non-EU-controlled hyperscaler without a stated safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU data centres stated for the cloud edition, with a DPA, but significant parts of the chain (hosting, AI processing, support) are non-EU-controlled without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity, documents and metadata stored in named EU data centres, subprocessor list with locations published, AI processing location disclosed, an on-premises or private-cloud option offered, and certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5) published.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every processing location and subprocessor European, customer-controlled keys or on-premises operation available, and certifications with their scope published.
The GoBD Auditor
The evidence's provenance places ownership in the USA and says EU customers contract with Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited, yet nothing on the captured pages confirms the contracting entity or any processing location. We found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored and processed, on the subprocessors including any AI provider, or on an on-premises edition of the product as captured. 1 3
The Records Manager
For EU customers the contracting entity is Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited per the provenance note, though we found no confirmation of this on the vendor's own captured pages, and the vendor is US-based in Redmond. We found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored, on subprocessors, or on where the AI behind the Copilot add-on processes content. 1 2 3
The IT Integrator
The provenance names Microsoft Corporation in Redmond with EU customers contracting Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited, but that is not confirmed in the captured vendor pages, and the legal notice offers only support contact channels. We found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored in the cloud edition, on the subprocessor list, or on where Copilot's AI processing reads document content. 3 2
The Mittelstand Owner
The vendor is an American company from Redmond, and I found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored in the cloud edition, on a subprocessor list, or on where AI processing of content runs; the contracting entity is recorded as unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. For my invoices I want a named EU data centre and a published subprocessor chain, and neither is in evidence. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The provenance line has EU customers contracting with Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited under a US parent, but the vendor's captured pages state no data residency for the cloud edition, publish no subprocessor list and disclose no location for the AI processing that Microsoft 365 Copilot — offered as an add-on — performs on document content. As data protection officer I found no public information on storage locations, the subprocessor chain or AI processing locations on these pages, and that is disqualifying for sensitive records until it exists. 2 4
The Skeptic
The independently sourced provenance has EU customers contracting with Microsoft Ireland Operations while ownership sits with Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, and on the vendor's own captured pages we found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored, on subprocessors, or on where Copilot and its AI processing touch document content. An Irish contracting entity with an undisclosed, American-owned chain does not make this a European deployment. 1 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of a given number of users, storage and modules — including cloud versus on-premises licensing, maintenance, implementation partner fees and price increases — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote comes from sales or a partner.
3 — A "from" price or a single edition priced, but modules, storage, maintenance and partner implementation are unstated — the real cost is unknowable.
5 — Editions priced per user or per month, but at least one commonly needed cost (storage, archiving or workflow module, maintenance percentage, onboarding) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly, storage limits and overage stated, on-premises licence and maintenance terms given, and contract term and notice period published.
10 — Complete cost computability: a configurator or price list covering users, modules, storage and deployment model, partner implementation priced or bounded, and price-increase terms on a public page.
The GoBD Auditor
The captured plan comparison documents editions for 1–300 users, one terabyte of cloud storage per user, per-plan mailbox storage and which features are add-ons. No price figure appears in the captured facts, agents require an Azure subscription whose price depends on consumption, and we found no public information on the Copilot add-on price, contract terms or implementation — so the real cost of a deployment is not computable from the captured pages. 2
The Records Manager
A public comparison page lists three editions with one terabyte of cloud storage per user, a 1–300 user range and round-the-clock phone and web support, but I found no price figures in any capture — not for the editions, not for storage overage, and not for the Copilot add-on, with agents priced only as consumption on a separate Azure subscription. A buyer cannot compute a total cost from these pages. 2
The IT Integrator
A public plan comparison lays out three editions with user counts of 1–300, 1 TB of cloud storage per user, mailbox sizes, and add-ons such as Microsoft 365 Copilot and audio conferencing as a free add-on, with agents priced by Azure consumption. We found no public price figures for any edition in the captured pages, and no information on storage overage, maintenance, on-premises licensing, contract term, notice period or partner implementation. A buyer can compare features but cannot compute a cost. 2
The Mittelstand Owner
The plan comparison publishes user limits of 1–300, 1 TB per user and the feature differences between editions, which is more detail than most give. But I found no price figures for the editions, no storage overage terms, no on-premises licence or maintenance and no contract or notice periods — I still cannot compute what forty users cost before picking up the phone. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The plan comparison documents editions with user ranges of 1 to 300 employees, one terabyte of cloud storage per user and named add-ons including a free audio-conferencing add-on and consumption-priced Azure agents, yet no figures for the editions themselves, storage beyond the limits, maintenance or partner implementation appear in the captures. A buyer cannot compute the cost of a given number of users and storage from what I can see. 2
The Skeptic
Three editions are compared with concrete limits — 1 TB per user, 1–300 users, named add-ons — yet the captured pages show no price figure at all, and agents require an Azure subscription whose price " richtet sich nach Verbrauch" with no amounts given. A buyer can count everything on that comparison page and price nothing. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Microsoft SharePoint
Is Microsoft SharePoint European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Microsoft SharePoint as Rest of world.
Where does Microsoft SharePoint store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Microsoft SharePoint have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Microsoft SharePoint?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates AMAGNO (3/5), Doxis (3/5) and EASY Archive (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 Document Management (DMS) 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 AMAGNO (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 SharePoint alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 16 product 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 data 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 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap developer.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap developer.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →