Forms & Surveys
Microsoft Forms
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 · learn.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 Forms at a glance
- Vendor
- Microsoft Corporation
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Microsoft Forms 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Microsoft Forms is a survey, quiz, poll and questionnaire builder bundled with a list of Microsoft 365 and Office 365 plans and available with a Microsoft account. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 28 Oct 2026 to 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 29 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Microsoft Forms is a survey, quiz, poll and questionnaire builder bundled with a list of Microsoft 365 and Office 365 plans and available with a Microsoft account. The bench scored it strongest on collection and workflows, where anonymous and external sharing, embedding in SharePoint, Teams and PowerPoint, email notifications and Power Automate workflows are documented. Hosting and sovereignty each scored a flat 4, resting on EU Data Boundary documentation that names EU and EFTA countries and the European datacenters for Microsoft 365 tenants signed up in the region, while acknowledging limited circumstances where data continues to be transferred outside it. Analysis and reporting scored 3–4, the low point: beyond real-time results, word clouds and Excel export, we found no public information on filters, cross-tabulation or standard scores such as NPS, so deeper analysis starts in a spreadsheet. Judges did not meaningfully split: no scored criterion spans more than a single point, and the market researcher scored analysis 3 while others scored 4. Pricing transparency scored 2–3; no prices or response limits appear on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- Branching logic, multilingual forms and auto-graded quizzes are documented across the listed plans
- Distribution covers anonymous and external sharing, embedding in SharePoint, Teams and PowerPoint, and email notifications
- Automated workflows through Power Automate carry responses onward, with export to Excel
- The EU Data Boundary documentation names EU and EFTA countries and the datacenter countries used, for Microsoft 365 tenants signed up in the region
- A data protection addendum is downloadable and GDPR compliance is stated since May 2018
Held against it
- Branding customization is limited to changing the image
- We found no public information on filters, cross-tabulation or standard scores such as NPS, with export documented to Excel
- We found no public information on retention with automatic deletion, encryption of responses, or per-respondent access and erasure tools
- Names of people in your organisation are recorded by default until an administrator changes that setting
- Transfers outside the EU Data Boundary continue in limited documented circumstances, and Multi-Geo customers are not in scope
Best for
- You already run on Microsoft 365 and want quick surveys, registrations and knowledge checks distributed through Teams and SharePoint
- You need responses flowing automatically into Excel or Power Automate workflows without adding another tool
- Your procurement wants a documented EU residency commitment, with Microsoft 365 tenants signed up in the EU or EFTA served from datacenters in named European countries
- You want a no-cost entry point through a personal Microsoft account (Hotmail, Live or Outlook.com)
Avoid if
- You need in-tool cross-tabulation, filters or NPS-style scores — the documented analytics are real-time results, response summaries, word clouds and Excel export
- Your branding needs go beyond changing the image, the documented limit of customization
- Your tenant has purchased Multi-Geo Capabilities, which the EU Data Boundary documentation excludes from its scope
- You run anonymous collections and cannot ensure an administrator unchecks the default that records the names of people in your organisation
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Form & survey building | 2 of 5 |
| Distribution, response collection & workflows | 2 of 5 |
| Survey analysis & reporting | 2 of 5 |
| Consent, GDPR & respondent data | 2 of 5 |
| Hosting choice, teams & portability | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
Form & survey building
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be built without code: question and field types, conditional logic and branching, piping and hidden fields, calculations, multi-page forms and progress, templates, design and branding, multiple languages, and accessible output for respondents.
0 — Not a form or survey builder; questions cannot be authored in the product.
3 — A builder with the common question types and a few templates; logic, branding or languages are basic or not described.
5 — A drag-and-drop builder with a wide range of question types, conditional logic that shows, hides or skips questions, multi-page forms, a template library, and the customer's logo, colours and fonts.
8 — Advanced logic with piping, hidden fields, calculations and scoring, randomisation, surveys translated into several languages from one master, reusable question libraries, custom CSS or themes, and accessible forms with a named standard (WCAG 2.1 AA or BITV) stated.
10 — Best-in-class authoring: complex research designs (loops, quotas in logic, conjoint or MaxDiff), versioned forms with change history, a published accessibility conformance report, and every element of a form available through the API.
The Market Researcher
The documented builder covers surveys, quizzes, polls and questionnaires with branching logic and multilingual forms in every plan family, which matters for my four-language waves. Branding is explicitly limited to changing the image only, and I found no public information on piping, hidden fields, calculations, randomisation, quotas in logic or accessibility standards. 1 2
The Operations Manager
Branching logic and multilingual forms are confirmed across every plan, forms can be duplicated and shared as templates, and quizzes carry auto and manual grading — enough for a colleague to build a registration or supplier questionnaire without IT. However, the service description itself states customization for branding is limited to changing the image, and we found no public information on multi-page forms, piping, calculations or a stated accessibility standard. 1 2
The HR Lead
The service description shows surveys, quizzes and polls with branching logic, multilingual forms, a math feature and duplicate-as-template, which covers a standard engagement questionnaire. Branding is explicitly limited to changing the image only, and we found no public information on multi-page surveys, piping, calculations or an accessibility standard such as WCAG or BITV that our works council expects. 1 2
The Academic Researcher
Branching logic, multilingual forms and quiz-style auto-grading are documented across all plan segments, but the pages describe no randomisation, piping, hidden fields, calculations or reusable question libraries — exactly what an ethics-board-approved instrument needs — and branding customisation is documented as limited to changing the image. I found no public information on the range of question types, multi-page structure, template libraries or accessibility standards for respondents. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Branching logic, multilingual forms, quizzes with auto-grading and sharing forms as templates are documented across plans, which goes beyond a basic builder. Branding is stated as limited to changing the image, and I found no public information on piping, calculations, multi-page layout, a template library or a named accessibility standard, so it sits short of the full authoring tier. 1 2
The Skeptic
Branching logic, multilingual forms, template sharing, duplicate forms and auto-graded quizzes are confirmed across plans, but the captured pages state that branding customization is limited to changing an image, and we found no public information on piping, hidden fields, calculations, multi-page layout, custom themes or an accessibility standard. A competent mid-level builder, evidenced at feature-name depth only. 1 2
Distribution, response collection & workflows
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How forms reach people and what happens to an answer: share links, embedding, QR codes, email invitations with reminders, contact lists and panels, offline or kiosk collection, file uploads, payments and signatures inside the form, notifications, approval or assignment of submissions, and automations that pass a response on to other tools.
0 — No way to collect responses from other people; the product only analyses data collected elsewhere.
3 — A share link and an embed code, with responses visible in the product; invitations, notifications and onward workflows are basic or not described.
5 — Links, embedding and QR codes, email notifications on submission, file uploads, a few native integrations (spreadsheets, CRM, chat) plus a connector service such as Zapier or Make, and either email invitations with reminders or payments inside the form.
8 — Invitations to managed contact lists with reminders and unique links, response quotas and closing rules, offline or kiosk collection, submissions routed for approval or assignment, conditional notifications, documented webhooks and a REST API to read and write responses.
10 — Collection at research and process scale: panel or sample sourcing, multi-channel distribution (email, SMS, web, app intercept) with deduplication, workflows with branching and audit trail, and every response event exposed to the customer's systems in real time with a stated delivery guarantee.
The Market Researcher
Share links, four external-sharing options, embedding in SharePoint, Teams and PowerPoint, email notifications and automated workflows through Power Automate are all documented, which covers basic fieldwork. For panel-style collection I need invitations to managed contact lists with reminders and quotas with closing rules, and here I found no public information beyond a general statement that you can invite people to respond. 1 2 3
The Operations Manager
Sharing anonymously or restricted to our organisation, embedding in Teams and SharePoint, email notifications and automated workflows through Power Automate with an Excel export cover most of the routing I need — a submission reaches a workbook or a flow without copy and paste. What I could not find is any mention of file uploads (my damage reports need photos), payments inside the form, QR codes or invitation reminders, which is exactly what my order and damage processes require. 1 2 3
The HR Lead
Distribution is documented through share links, anonymous sharing, embedding in SharePoint, Teams and PowerPoint, email notifications, and polls inside Teams meetings, with Power Automate as the onward workflow engine and co-authoring for my small HR team. We found no public information on QR codes, invitations with reminders to managed contact lists, or file uploads. 1 2 3
The Academic Researcher
Anonymous and external sharing, embedding in SharePoint, Teams and OneNote, email notifications, and automated workflows through Power Automate are all documented, which is enough to invite a convenience sample through institutional channels. I found no public information on managed invitation lists with reminders, response quotas and closing rules, offline collection, file uploads or QR codes, so research-grade distribution is not in evidence. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Forms can be restricted to the organisation, shared internally and externally, embedded in SharePoint, Teams and other portals, with email notifications and automated workflows in Power Automate carrying responses onward. I found no public information on email invitations with reminders, file uploads, QR codes, payments or a documented API for responses, so collection stops short of a full distribution engine. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Distribution is genuinely multi-channel — anonymous links, external sharing, embedding in SharePoint, Teams and PowerPoint, plus Teams and Outlook polls — with email notifications and automated workflows through Power Automate confirmed. We found no public information on email invitations with reminders to managed contact lists, file uploads, payments, response quotas, kiosk collection or a documented API for responses. 1 3
Survey analysis & reporting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the product does with the answers: live results and charts, filters and segments, cross-tabulation, NPS, CSAT and other standard scores, open-text and sentiment analysis, shareable dashboards and reports, and exports to the formats analysts use (CSV, Excel, SPSS, R).
0 — No view of results inside the product; submissions can only be forwarded or downloaded one at a time.
3 — A table of responses with simple charts per question and a CSV export; filters, comparisons and report sharing are basic or not described.
5 — Charts per question, filters and segments, at least one comparison or cross-tab view, standard scores such as NPS, shareable or exportable reports (PDF, presentation), and exports to CSV and Excel.
8 — Cross-tabulation with significance testing, weighting, open-text coding or sentiment analysis, trend reports across survey waves, dashboards for different audiences with permissions, and SPSS or R exports with labels.
10 — A research-grade analysis environment: statistical models beyond cross-tabs (driver analysis, regression), benchmarks, text analytics with themes the customer can edit, and every analysis reproducible from documented exports or an analytics API.
The Market Researcher
Real-time results, a response summary, built-in analytics and word clouds are documented, with Excel export for anything deeper. I found no public information on filters, cross-tabulation, NPS or theme-based grouping of open answers, so my board-deck workflow would start in a spreadsheet — the exact step I pay to avoid. 1 2
The Operations Manager
Real-time results, a response summary, built-in analytics, word clouds and Excel export are confirmed, and a results summary can be shared with people outside the organisation. We found no public information on filters, cross-tabulation, NPS or CSAT scores or exportable PDF reports, so beyond a quick glance at registrations I would be doing the analysis in Excel. 1 2 3
The HR Lead
Real-time results, a response summary, built-in analytics, word clouds and Excel export are confirmed. Filters, cross-tabulation, NPS-style scores and shareable per-department reports are not described on the captured pages, so manager reporting would start from an Excel export. 1 2
The Academic Researcher
Real-time results, response summaries, word clouds, an externally shareable results summary and export to Excel are documented. I found no public information on filters, cross-tabulation, significance testing, standard scores such as NPS, or exports to SPSS or R with labels intact — on the documented evidence I could not reproduce an analysis in the formats my faculty publishes in. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Real-time results, a response summary, word clouds for open text and export to Excel for further analysis are documented. Filters, cross-tabulation, standard scores such as NPS and shareable reports are not described on the captured pages, and the export reach shown is Excel only. 1 2
The Skeptic
Real-time results, a response summary, built-in analytics, word clouds and Excel export are confirmed, along with the ability to share a results summary outside the organization. We found no public information on filters and segments, cross-tabulation, standard scores such as NPS, sentiment or text coding, or export formats beyond Excel. 1 2 3
Consent, GDPR & respondent data
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the product gives the customer to collect personal data lawfully: consent and privacy-notice fields, anonymous surveys that really drop IP addresses and identifiers, retention periods and automatic deletion, handling of access and erasure requests, encryption of responses, a data processing agreement, and controls over cookies and tracking on the form itself.
0 — The product collects no personal data from respondents, so there is nothing to protect; or it is a different kind of product.
3 — A privacy policy and a statement of GDPR compliance, with a checkbox field usable for consent; anonymity, retention and deletion are not described.
5 — A data processing agreement offered to customers, a consent or privacy-notice field, an anonymous mode that does not store IP addresses, responses deletable by the customer, and encryption in transit and at rest stated.
8 — Retention periods with automatic deletion, tools for access and erasure requests per respondent, field-level encryption or masking of sensitive answers, forms that set no tracking cookies by default, a published list of technical and organisational measures, and a named data protection officer.
10 — Data protection by design and evidenced: end-to-end or customer-key encryption of responses, documented data minimisation defaults, a DPA with audit rights and subprocessor change notice, records of consent kept with each response, and an independent audit of the privacy controls published.
The Market Researcher
A downloadable data processing agreement, a GDPR compliance statement dated May 2018, anonymous sharing of forms and an administrator setting controlling whether respondent names are recorded give me the skeleton of lawful collection. I found no public information on retention periods with automatic deletion, per-respondent access and erasure tooling, encryption of responses, or cookie and tracking controls on the form itself. 1 3 5
The Operations Manager
A downloadable data protection addendum and a GDPR compliance statement dating from May 2018 are confirmed, forms can be shared anonymously, and an administrator setting records the names of people in our organisation by default — a switch I would need to know to review for anonymous collections. We found no public information on retention periods or automatic deletion, encryption of responses, or tools for respondent access and erasure requests. 1 3 4 5
The HR Lead
A downloadable data processing addendum, GDPR compliance since May 2018 and anonymous sharing of forms are stated, and Microsoft requires system-generated logs to be pseudonymised. We found no public information on whether anonymous responses drop IP addresses, on retention periods and automatic deletion, or on consent and privacy-notice fields — and names of people in my organisation are recorded by default until an administrator unchecks that setting. 1 3 4 5
The Academic Researcher
A downloadable data processing addendum, a statement of GDPR compliance since May 2018, anonymous sharing, and required pseudonymisation of system-generated logs are documented. The pages give me nothing on consent or privacy-notice fields inside the instrument, retention with automatic deletion, per-respondent erasure tools or encryption of responses, and one default administrator setting records the names of people in the organisation — something my ethics board would query before sign-off. 1 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
A downloadable data processing addendum, a GDPR compliance statement and anonymous sharing of forms are documented, and pseudonymisation of system-generated logs is committed. I found no public information on consent or privacy-notice fields, an anonymous mode that drops IP addresses, retention with automatic deletion, or encryption of responses — and names of people in the organisation are recorded by default, the opposite of the minimisation default I require before sign-off. 1 3 4 5
The Skeptic
A downloadable data processing addendum, a GDPR compliance statement dating to May 2018, anonymous sharing, and an administrator toggle for whether respondent names are recorded are on the record, with pseudonymization described for system-generated logs. We found no public information on retention periods or automatic deletion of responses, encryption of answers, per-respondent access and erasure tooling, or whether anonymous forms drop IP addresses. 1 3 4 5
Hosting choice, teams & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the customer may choose about where and how the product runs and who uses it: a selectable data region or EU-only hosting, self-hosting or an on-premise edition, team workspaces with roles and permissions, single sign-on, an audit log, custom domains and white-labelling, and a complete export of forms and responses that another tool can import.
0 — A single-user tool with no export of forms or responses.
3 — Shared access for a team and a response export; data location, roles and single sign-on are not described.
5 — Hosting location stated with an EU option, team workspaces with at least two roles, single sign-on on a higher plan, a custom domain or removed vendor branding, and an export of all responses.
8 — EU-only hosting selectable per account or a self-hosted edition, granular roles per form or folder, SSO with SAML and user provisioning, an audit log, white-labelling, and forms and responses exportable in a documented format with an API.
10 — Full control over operation: an open-source or on-premise edition with feature parity, customer-chosen region per workspace, administrative APIs, a documented migration path in and out, and an uptime commitment with a published status history.
The Market Researcher
The EU Data Boundary documentation names the EU and EFTA countries and the specific datacenter countries for Microsoft 365 customers signing up in the region, and administrator controls include organisation-wide and per-user licence toggles. I found no public information on granular team roles, single sign-on, white-labelling or custom domains, and export is documented to Excel rather than as a portable form format. 1 3 4
The Operations Manager
Admins can turn Forms on or off per user or organisation-wide, colleagues can co-author forms, responses export to Excel, and the EU Data Boundary documentation names fifteen countries operating datacenters for Microsoft 365 tenants that sign up in the EU or EFTA. We found no public information on granular roles, single sign-on settings, an audit log, custom domains or a documented export format for whole forms. 1 3 4
The HR Lead
The EU Data Boundary commits to storing Microsoft 365 customer data in EU and EFTA datacentres for customers with an EU or EFTA sign-up location, administrators can switch Forms on or off per user or organisation-wide, and responses export to Excel. We found no public information on workspace roles per form, single sign-on settings for Forms or an audit log, and Multi-Geo customers are explicitly not in scope for the boundary. 1 3 4
The Academic Researcher
The EU Data Boundary documentation names the EU and EFTA countries and the specific European datacenters, with Microsoft 365 tenants in scope by sign-up location — enough for a faculty to argue residency — though transfers outside the boundary continue in limited documented circumstances and Multi-Geo customers are excluded. Administration runs through a Microsoft admin portal with organisation-wide and per-user switches plus eDiscovery; I found no public information on team roles, single sign-on, audit logs or white-labelling, and branding customisation is documented as limited to the image. 4 3 1
The Data Protection Officer
The EU Data Boundary is documented in detail, with storage and processing inside named EU and EFTA countries for tenants whose sign-up location is there, alongside Excel export of responses, co-authoring and organisation-wide or per-user on/off toggles. I found no public information on roles that keep responses away from people who do not need them, single sign-on, custom domains or an audit log, and branding is stated as limited to the image. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The EU Data Boundary commits to storing and processing customer data in named EU and EFTA countries with listed datacenters, and collaboration on forms, Excel export, eDiscovery and organization-wide admin controls are confirmed. We found no public information on team roles for forms, single sign-on, an audit log, white-labelling or a documented full export format — the pages state branding is limited to an image — and the boundary itself carries acknowledged exceptions for transfers outside it. 1 3 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where forms and responses are hosted, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, email delivery, payment providers, analytics, AI features). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; responses often carry personal and sometimes special-category data, so the whole chain counts, not only the database.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.
5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (email, analytics, AI features, support) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.
The Market Researcher
The EU Data Boundary pages commit Microsoft 365 customer data to named EU and EFTA datacenter countries and the data processing addendum is downloadable, though the same pages acknowledge limited circumstances where data continues to be transferred outside the boundary. The vendor is US-based, and I found no public information on subprocessor identities or locations or on certifications such as ISO 27001; forms also pull Bing images and YouTube content with that setting on by default. 3 4 5
The Operations Manager
The contracting vendor is Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, USA, while the captured EU Data Boundary documentation commits to storing and processing customer data within EU datacenters — with the caveat that limited circumstances continue to transfer data outside the boundary — and a data processing addendum is published. No subprocessors such as email delivery or analytics providers are named on these pages, so the chain my respondents' data travels is only partly visible. 4 5
The HR Lead
The EU Data Boundary pages name the EU and EFTA countries and the datacentre locations used, and the data protection addendum is published for download, but the same pages state limited circumstances where data continues to be transferred outside the boundary. The contracting entity, ownership and every subprocessor are unknown on the captured pages, so I cannot answer the works council's question about the full chain. 4 5
The Academic Researcher
Microsoft is a US company, but the captured pages document a genuine EU Data Boundary — named EU and EFTA countries, named European datacenters, and Microsoft 365 in scope for tenants signed up in the region — alongside a downloadable data protection addendum. The contracting entity's jurisdiction, the subcontractors for anything beyond Microsoft's own datacenters, and any ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certification are unknown to me from these pages, and the boundary documentation itself allows continued transfers outside the EU in limited circumstances. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor commits on its own pages to storing and processing customer data for Microsoft 365 within an EU and EFTA boundary using datacentres in named European countries, and publishes a data protection addendum. The captured pages state no subprocessors and no certifications, and transfers outside the boundary are acknowledged for limited circumstances, so the chain is only partly visible and ownership is not established from these documents. 4 5
The Skeptic
For a US-headquartered vendor, the EU Data Boundary is a real commitment: hosting on named Microsoft datacenters in EU and EFTA countries for customers with an EU sign-up location, a published data processing addendum, and GDPR compliance stated since 2018. The chain is not transparent end to end: we found no public information naming subprocessors or an EU contracting entity or representative, and the pages acknowledge limited circumstances where data continues to be transferred outside the boundary, with Multi-Geo tenants excluded from it entirely. 1 4 5
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per plan and per user, response or submission limits and what happens above them, which features (logic, branding removal, SSO, EU hosting, analysis modules) need a higher plan, add-ons, minimum term and the free tier's limits.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with users, responses or features is unclear.
5 — Plans are public with prices and their main limits (users, responses, forms), but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, EU hosting, extra responses, branding removal) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every plan priced publicly with its limits, overage or extra-response prices, feature differences per plan in a comparison table, billing period, VAT treatment and cancellation terms stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of users, responses and features, with every add-on, enterprise option, support level and data-return term published.
The Market Researcher
Forms is bundled with a long list of Microsoft 365 and Office 365 plans and is generally available free to users with a personal Microsoft account, so a free tier exists. No plan prices, response limits or add-on costs appear on the captured pages and the feature table itself may change without notice, so I cannot compute an annual cost from public information. 1 2
The Operations Manager
The service description lists the Microsoft 365 plans that include Forms and confirms general availability with a free Microsoft account (Hotmail, Live or Outlook.com), so a no-cost entry point exists. No plan prices, response or submission limits or add-on costs appear anywhere on the captured pages, and the feature table itself may change without notice — I cannot compute an annual cost from this, and we found no public information on what happens at high response volumes, which is the jump I fear. 1 2
The HR Lead
Forms is documented as included in a long list of Microsoft 365 and Office 365 plans and generally available to users with a personal Microsoft account. No plan price, response or form limit, or billing and cancellation terms appear on the captured pages, so the real annual cost of a survey programme is not computable from them. 1 2
The Academic Researcher
Forms is included in a long list of named Microsoft 365 and Office 365 plans and is generally available with a free Microsoft account, but none of the captured pages quote an actual price, a response limit or an overage. A faculty cannot compute the annual cost of running a study from the public information captured here, and the feature table itself may change without notice. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages list which Microsoft 365 and Office 365 plans include Forms and note that consumers with a Microsoft account can use it, so a no-cost route exists, but not one price figure, response limit or overage term appears anywhere I read. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from this documentation, and the feature table itself is stated to be subject to change without notice. 1 2
The Skeptic
A feature-by-plan matrix names every Microsoft 365 and Office 365 plan that includes Forms and shows which features differ, and a free path exists through a personal Microsoft account — but no price is quoted on the captured pages, and the vendor warns the table may change without notice. We found no public information on per-user prices, response limits, overage terms or what a year of Forms actually costs a given team. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Microsoft Forms
Is Microsoft Forms European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Microsoft Forms as Rest of world.
Where does Microsoft Forms store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
Does Microsoft Forms have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Microsoft Forms?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Formbricks (4/5), easyfeedback (3.5/5) and Netigate (3.5/5) highest among the other 19 Forms & Surveys 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 Formbricks (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 Forms alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 28 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 — Data processing agreement, Hosting location, Hosting options. 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.
- 5 compliance 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 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 Service description (features and plan availability) learn.microsoft.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Product documentation (admin overview) learn.microsoft.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Administrator settings documentation learn.microsoft.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 EU Data Boundary documentation learn.microsoft.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Data protection addendum www.microsoft.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy policy www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Security / trust page — found from the homepage learn.microsoft.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →