Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Loom 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

Loom'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 Loom a trustworthy vendor?

6.9/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
7.0
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
7.0
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
8.5
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
6.0
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
6.5
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
6.5
Trust signal log
  • 2021-05-25
    Series C raised $130M led by Andreessen Horowitz at $1.53B valuation
  • 2023-10-12
    Atlassian closes Loom acquisition for $975M
    The largest acquisition in the async video messaging category; positive for vendor stability, but signals end of Loom as an independent product roadmap.
  • 2024-04-10
    Post-acquisition departures across Loom team reported
    Consistent with acquisition-integration patterns; multiple founding-era Loom team members flagged departures publicly through 2024.
  • 2024-11-18
    Loom integrated into Atlassian Cloud, Jira and Confluence native embeds shipped
  • 2025-03-12
    Free-tier video-count and recording-length caps tightened
    G2 and Reddit creator-class users cited roughly 50% reductions in free-tier video count as material; widely-discussed criticism of post-acquisition product economics.
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 2026-05-23. Scoring methodology: editorial standards. Disagree? Tell us.