Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Smartsheet 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.

7.1
/10
mixed
Verdict

Smartsheet'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 Smartsheet a trustworthy vendor?

7.1/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
6.5
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
7.0
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
8.0
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
6.5
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
7.5
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
7.0
Trust signal log
  • 2018-04-27
    Smartsheet IPO on NYSE (SMAR)
    Public listing at $15 per share; opened above $19; strong reception from enterprise buyers.
  • 2021-06-29
    Smartsheet acquired 10,000ft for resource management
    Brought native resource management into the platform; integration well-received by professional-services buyers.
  • 2024-09-24
    Vista and Blackstone take Smartsheet private at $8.4B
    Transaction announced September 2024; closed early 2025; PE ownership pattern from Vista (Citrix, Pluralsight, Wrike) is renewal price pressure and slower roadmap over 18-36 months.
  • 2025-04-16
    Enterprise tier pricing transparency narrowed
    Post take-private, Enterprise tier pricing increasingly call-for-quote rather than published; consistent with Vista portfolio pattern.
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.