Per-seat add-on layered onto an existing Microsoft agreement, renewing on the parent contract cycle.
Venduris Fairness Score
55/100Structural friction that costs buyers money or time at renewal.
Evidence basis
Reviewed September 2026
Each category carries the weight set out in the methodology.
Observed from customer contracts and renewal correspondence covering published list pricing and discount structure. Based on paperwork supplied by three or more buyers, cross checked against the vendor's published terms.
Tied to the parent Microsoft agreement. Mid-term seat reduction is generally not permitted.
Vendor-reported. The vendor submitted a declaration covering year over year uplift on renewal quotes. Reviewed against public terms but not independently verified against customer contracts.
Discounting exists but is bound to the enterprise agreement cycle and total commitment.
Data boundary, tenant isolation, and training exclusions are documented in detail.
How to read this: the overall figure is a weighted average of the five categories, and one evidence basis applies to the whole card rather than category by category. Assessed from public sources: pricing pages, terms of service, and review-mining. The vendor has not participated. Any vendor can change this by submitting a declaration.
Assessed from public information. This vendor has not submitted a declaration. We publish the invitation openly and update the card if that changes.
Taking part does not raise a score. It changes what we can show our working against.
This score measures commercial treatment at renewal, not product quality. A vendor can be excellent and still price hard.
Venduris tracks your renewal dates, notice windows, and price movements so none of this arrives as a surprise.