AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
End-to-end encryption is a materially stronger guarantee than transit/rest-only; strong answers are explicit about which features get E2E versus which don't (E2E often doesn't extend to every feature, e.g. search or bots).
True E2E encryption makes provider-side content scanning technically impossible by design; look for how the vendor honestly resolves this tension (e.g., client-side DLP, key-escrow for compliance) rather than a claim that both 'full E2E' and 'full DLP scanning' exist simultaneously without explanation.
Granular, time-bound, scoped external access is stronger than an all-or-nothing invite that gives guests broad standing access to internal spaces.
Technically enforced controls (e.g., watermarking, disabled copy/download on unmanaged devices) are materially stronger than advisory-only policies that rely on user compliance.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Infrastructure-level residency enforcement (data physically stored and processed in-region) is stronger evidence than a contractual promise alone; ask for the specific mechanism.
Per-channel or per-sensitivity retention policy is stronger than one blunt global setting, since regulatory retention requirements often differ by data type or business unit.
Near-real-time SIEM export of security-relevant events is stronger than periodic batch export, which delays detection of anomalous access patterns.
Granular, admin-approved per-app scoping is stronger than broad default permissions; third-party app sprawl within collaboration tools is a common, underrated data-exposure vector.
Look for transparent, tier-differentiated pricing that's explicit about which capabilities (e.g., legal hold, DLP) are gated behind a premium tier rather than included in the base product.
Strong answers describe a real forensic-reconstruction capability with a customer example — this is a distinct, higher-stakes use case from routine legal-hold/eDiscovery access.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time dashboard — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Ask for an honest mobile-versus-desktop security-control parity comparison; a degraded mobile enforcement posture is a common real gap that should be disclosed rather than assumed away.
As collaboration platforms increasingly handle email-like communication, coordination with the existing email-security stack becomes more relevant — ask for a specific answer on this integration rather than assuming the two remain fully separate.
A collaboration-platform outage can fully halt organizational communication — ask for a real historical uptime track record, not just a contractual SLA number, and a specific fallback plan.
Voice/video has distinct security considerations (meeting-hijacking, recording access) from text/file security — a vendor should give a specific answer rather than assuming the same controls apply uniformly.
AI features embedded in collaboration tools often have broad access to message/file history by default — ask for a specific answer on data access scope, auditability, and the ability to exclude sensitive channels from AI processing.