Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Collibra 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.

6.5
/10
mixed
Verdict

Collibra'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 Collibra a trustworthy vendor?

6.5/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
4.5
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
6.0
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
7.5
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
7.5
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
6.5
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
7.0
Trust signal log
  • 2022-03-22
    $250M Series G at $5.25B valuation
    Round led by Sequoia Heritage; closed at the top of the late-stage market.
  • 2023-01-25
    Layoff round affected approximately 15% of staff
    First reduction tied to the post-2022 funding environment and revenue compression.
  • 2023-09-13
    Second layoff round in 2023
    Further staff reductions; customer-success continuity flagged in renewal conversations.
  • 2024-11-04
    Collibra AI Governance announced
    AI governance module pitched as the differentiator versus modern challengers; production references still limited.
  • 2025-09-18
    Acquired Charted by Collibra (data products tooling)
    Bolt-on for the data-product narrative; integration into core platform underway.
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.