Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Microsoft Power Apps 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.

7.8
/10
mixed
Verdict

Microsoft Power Apps'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 Microsoft Power Apps a trustworthy vendor?

7.8/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
6.5
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
7.5
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
8.5
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
8.0
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
9.0
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
7.0
Trust signal log
  • 2016-11-01
    Microsoft Power Apps GA as part of Power Platform
  • 2019-10-04
    Per-app and per-user licensing model introduced
    Replaced earlier P1/P2 SKU model; customers flagged the new matrix as the source of the licensing-confusion complaint.
  • 2023-05-23
    Copilot in Power Apps launched at Build
    Generative AI app-building features; positioned Power Apps alongside Mendix Maia and OutSystems Mentor on AI feature surface.
  • 2024-04-18
    Power Apps Premium consolidates per-user with attended automation features
  • 2025-09-22
    AI Builder credit pricing clarified after customer confusion
    Microsoft published clearer credit consumption guidance after sustained customer feedback that credits consumed faster than expected.
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.