Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Almanac vendor trust score

Trust scoring is the “is this vendor a fair counterparty” question, deliberately separated from product quality. Six dimensions, dated, sourced where events warrant it.

6.9
/10
mixed
Verdict

Almanac's vendor trust profile is mixed. The dimension scores below show where to negotiate hard and what to monitor across a multi-year contract.

Vendor Trust Score

Is Almanac a trustworthy vendor?

6.9/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
7.0
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
7.5
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
6.5
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
7.0
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
6.5
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
7.0
Trust signal log
  • 2021-09-14
    Almanac raised 34M USD Series A led by Tiger Global
    Reported total funding around 43M USD; positioned Almanac as the Git-style versioned wiki for engineering and remote-first teams.
  • 2024-06-18
    Roadmap velocity slowed and public communication reduced
    Vendor footprint contracted meaningfully in 2024 with reduced public communication; buyers reported slower feature delivery and longer support response times.
  • 2025-08-22
    Acquisition or wind-down risk surfaced for buyer awareness
    Reduced funding announcements and roadmap velocity raise reasonable buyer concerns about vendor longevity; worth evaluating renewal risk explicitly.
Vendor Trust is scored independently of product quality. A great product from an unfair vendor still earns a low trust score.

How to read this score

  • Trust is separate from product quality. A vendor can ship great software and treat customers badly — or vice versa. We score the two independently.
  • 8.0+/10: strong. Few concerns at renewal or procurement.
  • 6.5–7.9: mixed. Negotiate hard on the lowest dimensions; monitor across the contract term.
  • 5.0–6.4: cautious. Add explicit mitigation language to the master agreement.
  • Below 5.0: concerning. Treat this as a contracted-risk evaluation, not a product-fit evaluation.
  • Updates: we re-verify scoring quarterly. Material trust events (acquisitions, breaches, leadership change, hostile contract terms) get logged on the timeline above.

Related editorial

Last updated 2026-05-10. Scoring methodology: editorial standards. Disagree? Tell us.