Business Instant Messaging
Microsoft Teams (Chat)
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
Compare with Slack → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Microsoft Teams (Chat) is Microsoft Corporation's cloud business-messaging product, sold as Microsoft 365 subscriptions for 1–300 users. The bench scored it highest on integrations, 3 to 4, crediting over 250 integrated business apps and Copilot Studio chatbot building included in the business plans, and on pricing transparency, 3 to 5, where add-ons carry exact public prices — Teams Premium at 8,70 € per user per month and Microsoft 365 Copilot Business at 18,20 € per user per month, VAT excluded. The weakest areas are deployment control, scored 1 to 1, and sovereignty, 0 to 1: the captures describe cloud subscriptions only, the privacy statement permits storage and processing in the user's region, the United States and any other jurisdiction where Microsoft or its service providers operate, and the only documented exit is deletion of all associated data on cancellation. Messaging core, encryption and access, and governance and discovery cluster at 2-3; we found no public price for the base plans or for the E3 tier gating compliance; persona-weighted totals run from 1.8 to 3.3.
Speaks for it
- Over 250 integrated business apps are stated on the captured pages.
- Custom chatbot creation with Copilot Studio is included in Microsoft 365 Business Basic and Business Standard.
- Teams Premium at 8,70 € per user per month and Microsoft 365 Copilot Business at 18,20 € per user per month are published with billing period and VAT treatment stated.
- File sharing rests on SharePoint Plan 1 team sites and 1 TB per user of cloud storage in the business plans.
- A free version of Microsoft Entra ID is included in all three plans.
Held against it
- The captured pages show only cloud subscriptions, and the only documented exit is deletion of all associated data on cancellation.
- The privacy statement permits storage and processing in the user's region, the United States and any other jurisdiction where Microsoft or its service providers operate, and we found no public information on a published subprocessor list.
- Data security and compliance sit in the Microsoft Purview Suite, which requires Microsoft 365 E3, and we found no public price for that tier.
- We found no public information on per-user prices for the base plans themselves.
- The privacy statement says user data may be used to develop and train the vendor's AI models and that time, date and participants of communications are recorded.
Best for
- You want chat and channels inside a Microsoft 365 subscription, with SharePoint team sites and 1 TB per user of cloud storage.
- You value a large ready-made catalogue of over 250 business apps over a documented developer API.
- You need published add-on prices with explicit refund and trial terms for budgeting.
- Your headcount fits the stated 1–300-user plans and vendor-cloud custody for messaging is acceptable to you.
Avoid if
- You need European custody of the archive — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must self-host or hand over a readable archive on exit — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your compliance regime requires documented retention, discovery export or audit trails — these are routed to the Microsoft Purview Suite behind a Microsoft 365 E3 requirement, and we found no public information on their mechanisms.
- Your works council will scrutinise AI training on user data or the recording of time, date and participants of communications — the privacy statement discloses both, and we found no public information on organisation-wide switches for such monitoring.
The scores
Channels, threads & search
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The daily surface: channel model, threading, mentions, files, and whether search can find a decision made eighteen months ago.
0 — Flat group chats with no threads; search covers recent messages only, and history is capped.
3 — Channels and direct messages with basic search, but threading is awkward or absent and file handling is a plain attachment list.
5 — Public and private channels, real threads, mentions and reactions, file sharing with previews, and full-text search across the whole history.
8 — Cross-organisation or guest channels with clear boundaries, message editing history, pinned and saved items, search with filters by channel, person and date, and a documented history limit or none at all.
10 — The archive is a working knowledge base: search that ranks well across years, threads that stay readable, channel lifecycle management (archive, rename, merge) without losing history, and export of a conversation in a form a human can read.
The Team Lead
The captured pages name chat and channels as a solution area and show real file infrastructure (SharePoint Plan 1 team sites, 1 TB per user), which puts this above flat group chats. We found no public information on threading, mentions, search across history, message editing or any history limit, so I cannot credit the archive a busy team actually leans on. 2 1
The Security Officer
The captured pages confirm chat and channels as a solution area, plus file sharing through SharePoint and per-user cloud storage of 1 TB or 10 GB depending on plan. We found no public information in the captures on threading, mentions, full-text search across history, message editing history, or channel lifecycle, so I cannot place the daily surface above the basic channel-and-attachments level. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages name chat and channels as a core solution area, but we found no public information on threading, mentions, search across history, or export of a conversation in a form a person can read. For a works council, a chat that records who spoke to whom at what hour is a record, and none of the record-handling surface beyond the channel name itself is evidenced here. 1 3
The Compliance Counsel
The product pages name chat and channels among the solution areas, but we found no public information on threading, message editing history, or search across the archive — and a record I must one day produce to a regulator has to be findable years later, not merely sent. 1
The Platform Engineer
Chat and channels are named as a core solution area and file sharing comes with real backing — up to 1 TB per user, SharePoint sites, Whiteboard, meeting recordings. But we found no public information on threading, mentions, search depth or history limits in the captured pages, so whether a decision from eighteen months ago is findable is simply not evidenced here. 2 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages name chat and channels as one of the product's solution areas, which is a category heading rather than a capability; we found no public information on threading, mentions, search across message history, or any documented history limit. 1
Encryption & access control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What is encrypted and against whom, plus who can reach which room. Judged on documented mechanism, since "encrypted" in this category usually means the vendor holds the keys.
0 — Transport encryption only, undocumented; no role model beyond admin, guests indistinguishable from members.
3 — TLS and encryption at rest with vendor-held keys, basic roles, and guest access that mostly works.
5 — The above plus configurable roles per channel, SSO, guest accounts with scoped visibility, and a clear statement of what the vendor can read.
8 — Optional end-to-end encryption for direct messages or private rooms with the trade-offs named, device verification, session management an admin can revoke, and documented key handling.
10 — End-to-end encryption as a first-class mode — documented or open cryptography, cross-device key management that ordinary users survive, identity verification, and the vendor stating plainly what it cannot decrypt.
The Team Lead
Encryption for meetings, chats, calls and files is listed as included and a free Microsoft Entra ID version ships in every plan, but no mechanism is documented — we found no public information on end-to-end encryption, key handling, guest scoping or per-channel roles. The privacy statement describes using data for AI model training, so I read the encryption story as vendor-held rather than end-to-end. 2 3
The Security Officer
Encryption of meetings, chats, calls and files appears only as a feature bullet on a plan comparison page, with no documented mechanism, no statement of who holds the keys, and no end-to-end mode, device verification, or admin-revocable sessions anywhere in the captured pages. The privacy statement says user data may be used to develop and train Microsoft's AI models, which is the opposite of a plain statement of what the vendor cannot read, though it also notes customer agreements for enterprise and developer products take precedence over the statement. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Encryption of meetings, chats, calls and files is listed as included in the business plans, but the captured pages do not document the mechanism, key custody or a per-channel role model. A free Microsoft Entra ID layer in every plan is the extent of the access evidence; we found no public information on guest handling, session revocation, device verification, or a plain statement of what the vendor itself can read. 2
The Compliance Counsel
Encryption of meetings, chats, calls and files is listed as included in the business plans and a free Entra ID identity tier ships in every plan, but the pages state no encryption mechanism, no key custody, no guest-access scoping and nothing on what the vendor itself can read — unverified as a control, in my view. 2
The Platform Engineer
Encryption of chats, calls, meetings and files is listed as included in the Teams versions, and a free Entra ID tier handles identity in every plan — which reads as transport and at-rest encryption with the vendor holding the keys, as far as these pages go. We found no public information on end-to-end encryption, key custody, device verification or guest scoping; the privacy statement's note that data may be used to develop and train AI models is the closest thing captured to a statement of what the vendor can reach. 2 3
The Skeptic
Encryption of meetings, chats, calls and files is listed as included with no stated mechanism, and we found no public information on transport versus at-rest encryption, key custody, end-to-end encryption, per-channel roles, or guest scoping. The privacy statement does say that time, date and participants of communications are recorded and that data can be used to develop and train the vendor's AI models. 2 3
Retention, discovery & co-determination
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The archive as a legal object: retention policies, export for discovery, audit, and the monitoring features a works council will ask to have switched off.
0 — No retention policy, no export beyond a manual copy, no audit log, and presence or activity analytics that cannot be disabled.
3 — Manual export of some data and a global history limit, but no per-channel retention, no audit log and no admin control over analytics.
5 — Configurable retention per channel or workspace, admin export in a documented format, an audit log of administrative actions, and status or presence that a user can control.
8 — Legal-hold and eDiscovery export including edits and deletions, retention executed per policy and evidenced, full admin audit trail, and activity analytics switchable off organisation-wide.
10 — Built to pass a works agreement and a subpoena on the same day: granular retention with documented deletion, discovery export a lawyer can use, complete audit, and no individual-level productivity scoring anywhere in the product.
The Team Lead
Compliance is named but parked one floor up: data security and compliance sits in the Microsoft Purview Suite and requires Microsoft 365 E3, and we found no public information on retention configuration, discovery export, or an admin audit log. The privacy statement documents that time, date and the users involved in Teams communication are captured, and we found no public information on organisation-wide controls to switch such monitoring off. 2 3
The Security Officer
Compliance and data protection are routed to the Microsoft Purview suite, which requires a Microsoft 365 E3 licence, and the captured pages document none of its mechanisms — no per-channel retention, no discovery export format, no audit trail, and no organisation-wide switch for presence or activity analytics. The only retention-adjacent statements are that all associated data is deleted on subscription cancellation and that time, date and participants of communications are collected as metadata. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Retention, deletion and destruction are pointed to somewhere in Microsoft 365 and cancellation deletes associated data, but compliance and data security sit in a separately licensed Purview suite gated on an E3 plan. The captured pages confirm that time, date and the users involved in communication are recorded, while we found no public information on user-controlled presence, an administrative audit trail, discovery export, or activity analytics that can be switched off organisation-wide — exactly the points a works agreement turns on. 2 3
The Compliance Counsel
The security and compliance capability I would rely on for hold and discovery is placed in the Microsoft Purview Suite behind a Microsoft 365 E3 requirement, and we found no public information on retention per channel, legal hold, discovery export including edits and deletions, or an audit trail of administrative actions. The privacy statement itself says not all personal data can be accessed or controlled through the provided tools, and it discloses collection of communication metadata and the use of user data to train AI models — both matters a works council will raise. 2 3
The Platform Engineer
Compliance is pointed at the Microsoft Purview suite, which the page says requires Microsoft 365 E3, and cancellation is documented to delete all associated data. We found no public information on per-channel retention, a discovery export a lawyer could use, an audit log, or admin control over analytics — for a works council conversation I could not answer a single question from what is captured. 2 3
The Skeptic
The only governance statements are that data security and compliance sit in the Purview Suite requiring Microsoft 365 E3, and that all associated data is deleted on cancellation — pointers rather than a documented regime. We found no public information on per-channel retention, audit logs, discovery export, or admin control over activity analytics. 2
Deployment & data custody
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the customer can hold their own archive: self-hosting, private cloud, open source, federation, and what an exit actually looks like.
0 — Cloud-only, proprietary, with export limited to a partial archive.
3 — Cloud-only, but with a documented full export in an open-ish format.
5 — A private-cloud or dedicated-instance option, or a self-hosted edition that lags the cloud significantly; full export documented.
8 — A genuine self-hosted edition close to feature parity, or open-source core with a documented upgrade path, plus complete export including files and metadata.
10 — Custody is the customer's: open-source or source-available server, self-hosting supported as a first-class deployment, open protocol or federation, and a migration path in and out that the vendor documents rather than resists.
The Team Lead
Every capture points at Microsoft's own cloud: personal data may be stored in the user's region, the United States, and any jurisdiction where Microsoft or its service providers operate, and we found no public information on a self-hosted or dedicated-instance edition. The only documented exit is deletion — on cancellation all associated data is deleted — and we found no public information on export of the archive in a readable format. 2 3
The Security Officer
Everything captured describes cloud subscription plans; we found no public information on a self-hosted edition, an open-source or source-available server, federation, or a documented export of the workspace archive including files and metadata. Custody is further concentrated by the statement that personal data may be stored and processed in the United States and in any jurisdiction where Microsoft or its service providers operate. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Everything captured is a cloud subscription with automatic renewal; we found no public information on a self-hosted or source-available edition, federation, or a documented organisational export of chat and files. The only data-out path shown is the individual privacy dashboard, and the privacy statement itself says not all personal data can be retrieved or controlled through those tools — so the archive stays with the vendor. 2 3
The Compliance Counsel
Personal data may be stored and processed in the user's region, the United States and any other jurisdiction where Microsoft, its affiliates, subsidiaries or service providers operate, and we found no public information on self-hosting, a dedicated-instance option, or a documented full-archive export. The only custody transition the captured pages document is deletion of all data on subscription cancellation — a destruction event, not a handover of the record. 2 3
The Platform Engineer
Everything captured is a cloud subscription for 1–300 users, managed and cancelled through the Microsoft 365 admin center with annual auto-renewal; we found no public information on a self-hosted edition, an open-source core, federation, or a documented export path for the archive. On this evidence custody sits entirely with the vendor, and the only exit documented is deletion of all associated data on cancellation. 2 3
The Skeptic
The captures show cloud subscriptions for 1–300 users, billed and cancelled through the Microsoft 365 Admin Center; we found no public information on a self-hosted edition, a private-cloud option, or a documented export format. The only exit-related statement is deletion of all associated data on cancellation. 2
Integrations & extensibility
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Bots, webhooks, app framework, identity — whether the chat becomes the place work is noticed, and whether that is buildable without a partner agreement.
0 — No API, no webhooks, no bots.
3 — Incoming webhooks and a handful of native integrations; no bot framework, no documented limits.
5 — Documented REST API, incoming and outgoing webhooks, slash commands, a bot account model, and SSO.
8 — A proper app framework with interactive components, event subscriptions with retries, SCIM provisioning, documented rate limits and a sandbox.
10 — A platform: versioned API with a deprecation policy, an app directory or plugin system with permissions a customer can audit, and integrations the vendor maintains rather than lists.
The Team Lead
Over 250 integrated business apps plus custom chatbots built with Copilot Studio is more than a plain integration list. But the bot route requires a Microsoft 365 Copilot license, and we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, slash commands, event subscriptions or rate limits, so I cannot call it a buildable platform from the evidence shown. 2 1
The Security Officer
Over 250 integrated business apps and the ability to build custom chatbots with Copilot Studio are shown, with a free version of Microsoft Entra ID in all three plans for identity. We found no public information in the captures on a documented REST API, incoming or outgoing webhooks, slash commands, event subscriptions with retries, SCIM provisioning, rate limits, or a sandbox, which keeps this below a documented developer platform. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
Over 250 integrated business apps are advertised and a custom chatbot builder via Copilot Studio is included even in the lower business plans, with Entra ID providing the identity layer. But we found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, event subscriptions, rate limits or a sandbox — the machinery a works council would want to audit before bots read our channels. 2
The Compliance Counsel
Over 250 integrated business apps and custom chatbot creation through Copilot Studio are publicly stated, with agents requiring a Copilot licence or a consumption-based Azure subscription; we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, or rate limits a builder could plan against. 2 1
The Platform Engineer
Over 250 integrated business apps and a Copilot Studio chatbot builder included even in the small-business tiers is a genuine ecosystem, well past a handful of native integrations. But we found no public information on the developer surface itself: a documented API, webhooks, rate limits, an app permission model a customer could audit, or a sandbox — and agents are gated behind a Copilot licence rather than an open framework. 2 1
The Skeptic
Over 250 integrated business apps are stated, chatbot building with Copilot Studio is included in the business plans, and agents run on a consumption-priced Azure subscription. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, rate limits, or a sandbox, so this reads as native integrations plus a vendor-run bot builder. 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the archive and its metadata live, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors touch it. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU data residency offered for message content while metadata, search indexes or support tooling remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — notifications, AI features, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a self-hosted option that removes the question.
The Team Lead
The vendor is headquartered in Redmond, Washington, and its privacy statement says personal data may be stored in the user's region, the United States, and any jurisdiction where Microsoft or its service providers have facilities. We found no public information on an EU contracting entity, named hosting infrastructure, or a published subprocessor list. 3
The Security Officer
Microsoft is a United States vendor, and the privacy statement says personal data may be stored and processed in the user's region, in the United States and in any jurisdiction where Microsoft, its affiliates, subsidiaries or service providers operate. We found no public information on EU data residency, an EU contracting entity, or a published subprocessor list; the only cross-border safeguards named are the EU-US, UK-extension and Swiss-US data privacy frameworks. 3
The Works Council Advocate
Microsoft is a United States company, and the privacy statement reserves the right to store and process personal data in the user's region, in the United States, and in any jurisdiction where Microsoft or its service providers operate, relying on the EU-US data privacy framework for transfers. The contracting entity's jurisdiction and the subprocessor list are not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and we found no public information on EU-standard hosting or European custody of the archive. 3
The Compliance Counsel
The vendor is a United States corporation whose privacy statement allows personal data to be stored and processed in the user's region, the United States and any jurisdiction where Microsoft or its affiliates, subsidiaries or service providers have facilities, with transfers resting on the EU-US data privacy framework; we found no public information on EU data residency as standard, an EU contracting entity, or a named subprocessor list. An archive I must defend is not under my client's jurisdiction here. 3
The Platform Engineer
The privacy statement says personal data may be stored and processed in the user's region, the United States, and any jurisdiction where Microsoft or its service providers operate, with the EU-US privacy framework certifications as the safeguard. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list, an EU hosting commitment or an EU contracting entity, and the vendor is US-based — as this buyer weighs it, the archive's metadata is not European custody. 3
The Skeptic
The vendor is a United States corporation whose privacy statement says personal data may be stored and processed in the user's region, in the United States, and in any other jurisdiction where the vendor or its service providers operate, with EU-US framework participation as the transfer safeguard. We found no public information on a guaranteed EU hosting option or a published subprocessor list. 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual invoice for their headcount — including the retention, compliance and guest features they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-user headline exists, but the tier where retention control, SSO or compliance export begins is unstated.
5 — Per-user prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed capability (unlimited history, SSO, eDiscovery) sits in an unpriced enterprise tier.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with per-user maths, history and storage limits, feature boundaries, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; self-hosted licensing priced too where offered.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given headcount and deployment choice, including guest users, storage and any per-instance licence.
The Team Lead
Two add-ons carry public per-user prices with billing period and VAT treatment stated — Microsoft Teams Premium at 8,70 € Benutzer/Monat and Microsoft 365 Copilot Business at 18,20 € (15,60 € discounted), both jährliche Abrechnung, Preise zzgl. MwSt. — and refund, trial and discount terms are explicit. But the compliance path requires Microsoft 365 E3, and we found no public information on pricing for that tier or for guest users, so the full annual invoice is not computable from what I can see. 2
The Security Officer
Add-on prices are public and exact — Teams Premium at 8,70 € per user per month and Microsoft 365 Copilot Business at 18,20 € per user per month, annual billing with automatic renewal, prices excluding VAT — with storage limits, a 7-day pro-rated refund right and trial auto-conversion all stated. But we found no public information on per-user prices for the base plans, and the compliance and data-protection capabilities sit in the Microsoft Purview suite requiring Microsoft 365 E3, whose price we found no public information on, so the invoice for a compliance-minded buyer is not computable from these pages. 2
The Works Council Advocate
Per-user add-on prices are public with billing period, VAT treatment, a seven-day cancellation right and free-trial auto-conversion all stated, which is more than a sales conversation. But compliance and data security are routed to a Purview suite requiring a Microsoft 365 E3 plan, and we found no public price for that plan on the captured pages, nor per-user prices for the base plans themselves — so a buyer cannot compute the annual invoice for the retention and compliance features they actually need. 2
The Compliance Counsel
The public pages price the add-ons exactly — Teams Premium at 8,70 € per user per month and Microsoft 365 Copilot Business at 18,20 € per user per month, annual billing, VAT excluded — and state storage and user limits, but we found no public per-user price for the core plans themselves, and the compliance tooling I need for retention and discovery is stated to require Microsoft 365 E3, for which no public price is captured. The annual invoice for a compliant deployment is not computable from these pages alone. 2
The Platform Engineer
Add-on prices are published to the cent with billing period, auto-renewal and VAT treatment — Teams Premium at "8,70 € Benutzer/Monat", Copilot Business at "18,20 €" — plus storage limits and a 7-day pro-rated refund. But the captured pages give no per-user prices for the base subscriptions themselves, and data security and compliance sits in a Purview suite gated behind an enterprise plan that is not priced here, so the annual invoice for a headcount that needs retention control is not computable from these pages. 2 1
The Skeptic
Add-ons are priced precisely — Teams Premium at 8,70 € per user per month and Microsoft 365 Copilot Business at 18,20 € per user per month (discounted 15,60 €), annual billing with automatic renewal, prices excluding VAT — but we found no public information on per-user prices for the base plans themselves. Compliance data protection sits in a Purview Suite gated behind Microsoft 365 E3, unpriced here, and the Copilot discount applies to the first year and to existing business customers only. 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 31 Aug 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, Data residency, Subprocessors. 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.
- 108 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
- 25 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
- 15 legal 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
- 6 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
- 3 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 support 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 hosting 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Product page www.microsoft.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.microsoft.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy statement privacy.microsoft.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page www.microsoft.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.microsoft.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Channels, threads & search — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Encryption & access control — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Retention, discovery & co-determination — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Deployment & data custody — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap developer.microsoft.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations & extensibility — found from sitemap developer.microsoft.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →