Workflow Management
Microsoft Power Automate
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 Power Automate 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 Power Automate 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Microsoft Power Automate, Microsoft's cloud-only workflow service, drew uneven scoring. 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
Microsoft Power Automate alternatives, European ones first →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Microsoft Power Automate, Microsoft's cloud-only workflow service, drew uneven scoring. Its strength is integrations and connectors at 4-6: more than 1,400 certified connectors naming SAP, Dynamics 365 and Salesforce, and an on-premises data gateway reaching local data without moving it, with access control per data source. Pricing transparency follows at 3-4 — Premium at 13,00 € Benutzer/Monat and Process at 130,00 € Bot/Monat, each annually billed with prices excluding VAT, plus a 30-day free trial including premium features — though the flow allowance is given only as depending on the license type. Process design and governance and audit sit at 2-3 on approvals and managed environments, with no published detail on forms, escalation or audit logs. Weakest are run reliability and hosting and portability, both 0-1: no public information appears on what happens when a run fails, and the FAQ answers the on-premises question with 'Nein, Power Automate ist ein Clouddienst'. On sovereignty the judges split — the data protection officer 3, the operations analyst 1, the remaining four 0 — over Copilot's unstated model providers, no subprocessor list and unconfirmed execution location.
Speaks for it
- More than 1,400 predefined certified connectors are offered, with SAP, Dynamics 365 and Salesforce named.
- Custom connectors can be built for any cloud application.
- A downloadable on-premises data gateway connects local data sources without moving the data, with access control per data source in standard mode.
- Approval processes can be created, managed and shared, and employees or groups can be added as flow owners.
- Premium is publicly priced at 13,00 € Benutzer/Monat and Process at 130,00 € Bot/Monat with unlimited users per bot, each annually billed with prices excluding VAT, and a 30-day free trial includes premium features.
Held against it
- We found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting or searchable execution history when a run fails.
- The FAQ states Power Automate is a cloud service, and we found no public information on a selectable hosting region, a self-hosted edition or export of workflow definitions.
- The captured pages confirm neither where workflows execute nor any subprocessor list, and Copilot's model providers are unstated.
- The flow allowance is stated only as depending on the license type, with no public prices for premium connectors or AI steps.
- We found no public information on an audit log, where connection credentials are stored, SSO, or retention of execution payloads.
Best for
- You need to connect workflows to SAP, Dynamics 365 or Salesforce and reach internal databases through a gateway rather than a firewall opening.
- Your team works in Microsoft 365 and wants to automate in Excel, OneDrive or Teams without switching applications.
- You want to evaluate before committing, since a 30-day free trial includes premium features and both tier prices are public.
Avoid if
- You need documented failure behaviour for unattended overnight processes — run reliability scored 0-1, and the only hours shown are sales and support, Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 17:00.
- You must run the engine on your own infrastructure or keep a documented exit path for workflow definitions — the FAQ states Power Automate is a cloud service, and hosting and portability scored 0-1.
- You must evidence where employees' approval data executes and which subprocessors are involved before a works council review — the judges found no public information on either, and sovereignty scores range 0-3.
- You need to compute the full monthly invoice before signing — the pages state only that the flow count depends on the license type.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 1 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 2 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 0 of 5 |
| Governance, credentials & audit trail | 1.5 of 5 |
| Hosting options & portability | 0 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 2 of 5 |
Process design, forms & approvals
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Modelling the process people take part in: a visual designer or BPMN, forms, approval steps with roles and substitutes, deadlines and escalation, and versioning of a process that is already running — judged on whether a business owner can change a process without breaking the instances in flight.
0 — Linear trigger-action chains only; no human steps, no forms and no statement on approvals or roles.
3 — A visual builder with branching and a simple approval step, but approvers are named individuals rather than roles, there are no deadlines or escalation, and changing a process has no versioning.
5 — A visual designer with conditions and parallel paths, built-in forms, approval steps assigned to roles or groups, deadlines with reminders, and versions of a process kept with the running instances on their original version.
8 — BPMN 2.0 modelling or an equivalent documented notation, substitutes and escalation chains, multi-stage approvals with four-eyes rules, forms in German with validation and file upload, a task inbox for participants, and a test or simulation mode before publishing.
10 — The process is a governed asset: version history with diff and rollback, migration of running instances to a new version documented, process analytics on cycle time and bottlenecks per step, and the design documented well enough that a business team can maintain it without the vendor.
The Process Owner
The pages confirm approvals — Genehmigungsprozesse erstellen, verwalten und teilen — and flows can be shared with employees or groups as owners. But I found no public information on approvers set by role rather than by name, on substitutes, on deadlines that escalate, or on what happens to requests already in flight when a process changes, and nothing on a designer, forms or a task inbox. Templates and Copilot are named as helpers, but the detail my forty live approval requests depend on is unevidenced. 1 1
The Integration Engineer
Approval processes can be created, managed and shared — the one human-in-the-loop statement on the captured pages — and flows can have employees or groups as owners. We found no public information on forms, deadlines, escalation, substitutes, role-based approvers, a modelling notation, or versioning of processes already running, so a business owner cannot judge whether a live process can be changed safely. 1 1
The Operations Analyst
Approval processes can be created, managed and shared, and flows can be shared with members or groups as owners, so a human sign-off step exists and can belong to a group rather than a named individual. We found no public information on forms, deadlines and escalation, substitutes, or versioning of a process that is already running — which is exactly what a business owner needs to see before changing a live month-end approval. 1 1
The Head of IT
Approvals are confirmed — "Genehmigungsprozesse erstellen, verwalten und teilen" — alongside cloud flows, desktop RPA and templates, so human steps exist. Beyond that headline we found no public information on a visual designer or BPMN notation, on forms, on role-based approvers with substitutes, on deadlines or escalation, or on versioning of a process that is already running, which is what I need before a business owner touches production. 1 1
The Data Protection Officer
Approval processes are evidenced — creating, managing and sharing them is on the product page — and flows can be shared with individuals or groups as owners. We found no public information on forms with validation, deadlines, escalation or substitutes, on what an approval trail records about employees, or on versioning of a process that is already running. 1 1
The Skeptic
Approvals exist as a single marketing line — creating, managing and sharing approval processes — with no statement on roles, substitutes, deadlines or escalation, and we found no public information on forms, on a task inbox for participants, or on versioning of a process that is already running. Templates and process mining are named, but the captured pages show no designer detail a business owner could be judged against. 1 1
Connectors, API & on-premise reach
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Reaching the systems a European company actually runs: maintained connectors judged by name rather than count, a generic HTTP and webhook step, custom connectors, and a way to reach systems behind the firewall without opening it.
0 — No connectors beyond email, and no API or webhook step.
3 — A large connector count on a logo wall, with no statement of which actions each supports or who maintains them, and no generic HTTP step.
5 — Named connectors with their triggers and actions documented, including Microsoft 365 and at least one ERP or accounting system common in DACH (e.g. SAP, DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics), a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, and a documented API to start and query workflows.
8 — Custom connectors buildable from an OpenAPI description or code, an on-premise agent or self-hosted runner reaching internal databases and file shares, SOAP and database steps, OAuth handled per connection, and connector maintenance ownership (vendor, partner or community) stated.
10 — Integration is engineered: a versioned public API with a deprecation policy, connector changelogs, rate limits per connector published, event-driven triggers rather than polling where the source allows it, and the vendor maintaining the German-market connectors (DATEV, SAP, ELO or d.velop) itself.
The Process Owner
More than 1.400 predefined certified connectors are offered with SAP, Dynamics 365 and Salesforce named, custom connectors can be created for any cloud application, an SAP procurement solution template exists, and an on-premises data gateway reaches local data sources without moving the data, with per-data-source access control in standard mode. For the detail a buyer needs, I found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains them, a generic HTTP step, or a documented API to start and query workflows. 1 1 4
The Integration Engineer
Dynamics 365 and SAP are named among more than 1,400 certified connectors, custom connectors can be built for any cloud application, and the on-premises data gateway — standard mode with access control per data source, serving Power Automate alongside Power Apps and Logic Apps, reaching local data without moving it — is exactly the pattern for touching an internal database without a firewall hole. But the page gives a count rather than capability: no trigger or action documentation per connector, no generic HTTP or webhook step, no documented API for starting and querying flows, and no statement of who maintains which connector. 1 4 1
The Operations Analyst
Over 1,400 predefined certified connectors are stated, with SAP and Dynamics 365 named by name, custom connectors can be built for any cloud application, and the on-premises data gateway reaches internal services without moving the data, standard mode supporting multiple users with access control per data source. What the captured pages do not show is which triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains them, a generic HTTP or webhook step, or a documented API to start and query workflows. 1 1 4
The Head of IT
More than 1,400 certified connectors with Dynamics 365, SAP and Salesforce named, custom connectors for any cloud application, an SAP procurement template, and an on-premises data gateway reaching local services — that covers the DACH ERP base and firewall reach. We found no public information on the triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains them, a generic HTTP or webhook step, or a documented API to start and query workflows, which is the detail I need before anyone wires this into ERP. 1 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
More than 1,400 certified connectors are offered with SAP, Dynamics 365 and Salesforce named, custom connectors can be built for any cloud application, and a downloadable on-premise data gateway reaches internal data sources with access control per data source. We found no public information on which triggers and actions each connector supports, who maintains it, a generic HTTP or webhook step, or a documented API to start and query workflows. 1 1 4
The Skeptic
More than 1,400 predefined, certified connectors is a count, not a catalogue: the pages name Dynamics 365, SAP and Salesforce (plus an SAP procurement template) without documenting which triggers and actions each supports or who maintains them. Custom connectors and the on-premises data gateway are concrete and well documented, but we found no public information on a generic HTTP step or a documented API to start and query workflows. 1 1 4
Execution, error handling & monitoring
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens when a step fails at 3 a.m.: retries, error paths, alerting, an execution history someone can search, limits on runtime and throughput, and a status page that admits incidents.
0 — Nothing stated about failed runs; an error stops the workflow silently.
3 — Failed runs are marked and an email is sent, but retries are manual, execution history is short or undocumented, and runtime and throughput limits are unstated.
5 — Automatic retries with configurable back-off, an error path or error workflow, a searchable execution log with input and output per step, failure alerts by email or chat, and runtime, payload and rate limits documented.
8 — Replay of a failed run from the failing step, idempotency guidance, queueing and concurrency controls, execution history retention stated per plan, monitoring exportable to the customer's own tools, and a public status page with incident history and an uptime commitment.
10 — Operations are designed for production: an SLA with service credits, horizontal scaling or high-availability setup documented for self-hosted installs, dead-letter handling, end-to-end tracing across workflows, and post-incident reports published.
The Process Owner
Nothing in the captured pages describes what happens when a run fails — I found no public information on retries, error paths, execution history, runtime or throughput limits, or a status page with incidents. The only operational commitment shown is sales and support reachability Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 17:00, which will not help at 3 a.m. 1 1
The Integration Engineer
The captured pages say nothing about failed runs: we found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting, searchable execution history, runtime or throughput limits, or a status page. The capability list names orchestration and process mining, but nothing about what happens when a step fails overnight, which is worth the bottom of the scale by definition. 1
The Operations Analyst
We found no public information on what happens when a step fails — no retries, no error path, no searchable execution history, no failure alerts, and no published runtime, payload or rate limits, so the month-end run discovers its ceilings mid-run. The only adjacent capability is triggering downstream workflows when KPIs cross critical values, which is a data trigger, not monitoring of the runs themselves. 1 1
The Head of IT
The captured product pages say nothing about what happens when a run fails: no retries, no error paths, no alerting, no searchable execution history, no runtime or throughput limits, and no status page — process mining and orchestration appear only as module names. For workflows that approve invoices at 3 a.m., silence on failure behaviour means I cannot accept this into production on published evidence. 1 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting, a searchable execution history, or runtime, payload and rate limits — the captured pages say nothing about what happens when a run fails, which is the lowest outcome on this criterion. 1 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on retries, error paths, execution history, runtime or throughput limits, alerting, or a status page; orchestration appears as a bare module name with no detail. The captured pages simply never describe what happens when a step fails, which is worth the bottom mark by definition. 1 1
Governance, credentials & audit trail
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keeping automation from becoming shadow IT: roles and permissions, SSO, where connection credentials are stored, separate environments with controlled publishing, an audit trail of changes and approvals, and what the execution log retains of the payload. An approval record is also a record of employees' behaviour, so what the trail captures matters to a works council.
0 — Single-user accounts or one shared login; no roles, no audit log and no statement on credential storage.
3 — Admin and member roles and shared team folders, but credentials are visible to anyone who can edit a workflow, there is no audit log, and execution payloads are kept without a stated period.
5 — Role-based permissions per workflow or folder, SSO via SAML or OIDC, credentials stored encrypted and usable without being revealed, an audit log of workflow changes, and the retention period of execution data stated.
8 — Separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores supported, payload redaction or log-off per workflow, configurable execution data retention, and the audit trail exportable — with the fields it records about users described.
10 — Governance a works council and an auditor can both sign off: field-level masking of personal data in logs, delegated administration per department, a central inventory of every workflow and connection with its owner, certifications published (ISO 27001 or SOC 2), and documentation of what the platform records about individual users.
The Process Owner
Managed environments are marketed as visibility and control at scale, purchase requires a Global or Billing Administrator role, and gateway connections carry per-data-source access control — that is tenant and connection control, not workflow governance. I found no public information on an audit log of changes and approvals, on where connection credentials are stored, on SSO, or on how long execution payloads are kept; for a works council I have nothing documented on what the trail records about individual employees. 1 2 1 4
The Integration Engineer
Managed environments are promised for visibility and control at scale, gateway connections carry per-data-source access control, flows can have employees or groups as owners, and purchase requires Global or Billing Administrator — so role thinking exists. We found no public information on SSO, where connection credentials are stored, an audit log, execution-data retention, or what the trail records about individual users, which is what a works council will ask for. 1 1 4
The Operations Analyst
Managed environments are offered as visibility and control at scale, flows can be shared with members or groups as owners, and purchases require Global or Billing Administrator roles. We found no public information on an audit log of changes and approvals, where connection credentials are stored, or how long execution payloads are retained — the first three questions a works council will ask about an approval trail. 1 1
The Head of IT
Managed environments are advertised for "mehr Sichtbarkeit und Kontrolle", flows can be shared with employees or groups as owners, and purchasing requires a Global or Billing Administrator — an outline of administrative control and per-workflow ownership. We found no public information on SSO, on where connection credentials are stored, on separate test and production environments with a publishing approval, on an audit log, or on how long execution payloads are retained, so a works council review cannot be prepared from these pages. 1 1
The Data Protection Officer
Governance appears as a marketing phrase — managed environments promising more visibility and control — and purchasing requires Global or Billing Administrator roles, with flows shareable to groups as owners. We found no public information on SSO, where connection credentials are stored, an audit log, separate environments with controlled publishing, or how long execution payloads — copies of employees' approval behaviour — are retained; the privacy statement covers cookies and the privacy dashboard, not automation payloads. 1 2 1
The Skeptic
Managed environments promise more visibility and control with less effort, and flows can be shared with colleagues or groups as owners — real, but a slogan plus one sharing mechanism. We found no public information on an audit trail, on where connection credentials are stored, on SSO, or on how long execution payloads are kept — the first questions a works council will ask. 1 1
Hosting options & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the engine runs and whether the workflows can leave: cloud regions, self-hosted or on-premise editions, the licence of the engine, and export of workflow definitions in a format another tool or a later version can read.
0 — Cloud-only with no stated region, and no export of workflow definitions.
3 — Cloud-only with a region named, and an export that produces a proprietary file only the same product can import.
5 — An EU cloud region selectable, workflow definitions exportable as documented JSON or BPMN 2.0, and an API to read definitions and execution history for backup.
8 — A self-hosted or on-premise edition with its system requirements documented, workflow definitions versionable in Git, the engine's licence published, and a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted in both directions.
10 — The customer owns its automation: an open-source or source-available engine, definitions in an open standard executable elsewhere, air-gapped installation supported, and a stated exit process that hands back definitions, credentials metadata and execution history in documented formats.
The Process Owner
The vendor's own page answers the on-premises question with 'Nein, Power Automate ist ein Clouddienst'; the local gateway connects data sources rather than running the engine, and I found no public information on a region, a self-hosted edition, or an export of workflow definitions in a format another tool could read. On taking our processes back out of the product, we found no public information on any exit path. 1 4
The Integration Engineer
The FAQ answers plainly that Power Automate is a cloud service, with the local data gateway serving only as a connection path into on-premises data. No hosting region is stated, and we found no public information on a self-hosted edition, the engine's licence, or any export of workflow definitions in a format another tool could read — no evidenced way for the workflows to leave. 1
The Operations Analyst
The vendor's own FAQ answers that Power Automate is a cloud service, with on-premises reach only through the data gateway and desktop RPA apps running on Windows 10 and 11. We found no public information on a selectable cloud region, a self-hosted edition, or any export format for workflow definitions — so neither where runs execute nor how a workflow would ever leave is evidenced. 1 4
The Head of IT
The FAQ answer is explicit — "Nein, Power Automate ist ein Clouddienst" — and the on-premises capability is evidenced as a data gateway that connects out to local sources while the engine stays in Microsoft's cloud. We found no public information on a selectable region, a self-hosted edition, the engine's licence, or any export of workflow definitions as BPMN or documented JSON, so the exit path I require from every automation platform is not evidenced. 1 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor states plainly that Power Automate is a cloud service, with the data gateway serving only to reach internal sources, so the engine and its logs stay in the vendor's cloud. We found no public information on a selectable hosting region, a self-hosted edition with its system requirements, the engine's licence, or any export of workflow definitions in a documented format. 1 1
The Skeptic
The FAQ is blunt — Power Automate is a cloud service, and the on-premises data gateway only tunnels to local data without moving it, so the engine still runs in Microsoft's cloud. We found no public information on selectable hosting regions, on a self-hosted edition, on the engine's licence, or on export of workflow definitions in a format another tool could read. 1 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where workflows execute and where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI model providers behind any AI steps. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. A self-hosted edition counts only for the data that actually stays on the customer's servers.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, execution location unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU region offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI steps send data to model providers of unstated location.
5 — EU execution and log storage as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI steps, support access, telemetry — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU execution on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations including AI providers, a DPA covering execution payloads, and a self-hosted option that sends no workflow data to the vendor.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, AI steps runnable on European or self-hosted models, certification published, and a self-hosted edition that works without any call home.
The Process Owner
Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, USA is the vendor, and the captured pages confirm neither the contracting entity, nor where workflows and their payloads execute, nor any subprocessor list — the independently sourced attributes mark all of these unknown, and the only data-residency-adjacent tool shown is a Microsoft privacy dashboard. Copilot AI features are advertised with the model providers and their locations unstated, so approval data about my colleagues' behaviour has no evidenced European chain. 1 2 1
The Integration Engineer
The sovereignty attributes resolve to unknown throughout: the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity, where workflows execute, or where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, and they publish no subprocessor list — including where any AI providers behind Copilot sit. A US-headquartered vendor with unstated execution location and no published subprocessor list sits at the bottom of this scale. 1 2
The Operations Analyst
Ownership sits with Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, with EU business customers contracting through Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited per the provenance line, but the captured pages confirm neither the contracting entity nor any data residency. We found no public information on execution location, log storage, a subprocessor list, or where the marketed Copilot AI steps send their data. 1 2 1
The Head of IT
Microsoft Corporation is a US vendor in Redmond, and the captured pages confirm nothing about where workflows and their logs execute or who the subprocessors are — every sovereignty attribute, including the contracting entity for EU customers, is unconfirmed. Copilot is offered as an AI feature while we found no public information on where its model providers process data, which for approval records covering employee behaviour is not something I can sign off. 1 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Copilot is marketed as an AI feature while we found no public information on which model providers receive workflow payloads or where they process them; there is also no subprocessor list, no statement on where workflows execute and their logs are stored, and the contracting entity for EU customers is not confirmed on the captured pages. The service is cloud-only, so every step's data transits the vendor's infrastructure. 1 2 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, execution location or subprocessors in the captured pages, and the Copilot AI steps name no model provider or its location. The privacy statement offers rights tools and honours the Global Privacy Control signal — data-subject plumbing, not a statement of where workflows and their payload copies run. 2 1
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the monthly cost of their own processes from public pages alone: what the billing unit is (task, operation, execution, run, user or flow) and what counts as one, the allowance per tier, overage prices, and the cost of premium connectors, self-hosting, environments and AI steps.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the billing unit is undefined or what counts as one task or execution is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the billing unit defined and the monthly allowance given, but at least one commonly needed piece (overage, premium connectors, extra environments, self-hosted licence, AI steps) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its unit, allowance and limits, overage priced per unit, premium connector and add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the monthly cost derivable for a given number of workflows, runs and steps per run, with a published calculator or worked examples, every add-on and overage on a public page, and the effect of loops and retries on the count explained.
The Process Owner
Two plans are priced publicly — '13,00 € Benutzer/Monat' and '130,00 € Bot/Monat', both with annual billing and 'zzgl. MwSt.', plus a 30-day trial including premium features — and the units, user and bot, are stated. But the number of flows 'depends on the type of license', and I found no public information on premium connector surcharges, AI step pricing or overage, so the monthly cost of my forty approval processes is not computable from public pages alone. 1
The Integration Engineer
Two real prices are public — Premium at 13,00 € Benutzer/Monat with annual billing and prices excluding VAT, and the Process bot at 130,00 € Bot/Monat with unlimited users — with billing period and VAT treatment stated. But the allowance is not given, the pages saying only that the number of flows depends on the type of license, and we found no public information on premium connector surcharges, AI step pricing, or per-unit overage, so the monthly invoice remains partly computable. 1
The Operations Analyst
Two tiers carry public prices quoted as 13,00 € per user per month and 130,00 € per bot per month, each with annual billing and prices excluding VAT, plus a 30-day trial including premium features. The only statement on allowance is that the number of flows depends on the license type you own, and we found no public information on what counts as a run, overage prices, or the cost of AI steps — so what a loop over 5,000 rows costs per month is not computable from these pages. 1
The Head of IT
Two public prices exist — "13,00 € Benutzer/Monat, jährliche Abrechnung, Preise zzgl. MwSt." for Premium and "130,00 € Bot/Monat" for the Process bot with unlimited users — so the billing units of user and bot are stated, with VAT treatment and annual terms clear. The flow allowance is deferred to "die Anzahl hängt von der Art der Lizenz ab", and we found no public information on overage pricing, premium connector costs, extra environments or AI steps, so a department's real monthly invoice is not computable from these pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Two prices are public — Power Automate Premium at 13,00 € Benutzer/Monat and Power Automate Process at 130,00 € Bot/Monat, each annually billed with prices excluding VAT — plus a 30-day free trial including premium features. The allowance is only stated as depending on the type of licence, and we found no public prices for premium connectors, add-ons, environments or AI steps, so the monthly cost of a buyer's own processes is not computable. 1 1
The Skeptic
Two prices are public — 13,00 € Benutzer/Monat for Premium and 130,00 € Bot/Monat for Process, each with annual billing and Preise zzgl. MwSt. — but the captured answer to how many flows you get is that the number depends on the type of licence you own, and no allowance, run limits, premium-connector pricing or overage appears on the captured pages. A buyer cannot compute the monthly invoice for their own processes from this. 1
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Microsoft Power Automate
Is Microsoft Power Automate European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Microsoft Power Automate as Rest of world.
Where does Microsoft Power Automate store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Microsoft Power Automate have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Microsoft Power Automate?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Tray.ai (3/5), n8n (3/5) and Camunda (2.5/5) highest among the other 16 Workflow Management 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 n8n (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 Power Automate 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, Data residency. 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 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
- 4 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
- 1 data 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 legal 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
- 2 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor product page www.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.microsoft.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap www.microsoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →