The Best Microsoft Forms Alternatives in 2026: A Buyer's Guide

Example H2

Executive answer

The best Microsoft Forms alternative depends on whether your gap is operational or methodological. Sprig is the strongest choice for teams turning feedback collection into a research program run by AI agents. Jotform is best for operational forms that collect payments or signatures. Qualtrics and QuestionPro lead on advanced methodology, SurveyMonkey on distribution breadth and panel scale, Typeform on respondent experience, and Alchemer on reach modeling.

Key takeaways

Microsoft names eight Forms question types and publishes no total count
Microsoft documents branching as forward-only with a single condition
Native Forms reporting stops rendering charts above 50,000 responses
Microsoft lists Forms among services without a data residency commitment
Microsoft states the standalone Surveys Agent retires in July and August 2026
Sprig publishes United States hosting only and no SCIM provisioning
Every alternative here is a new contract, while Microsoft Forms is already paid for

Introduction: why teams outgrow Microsoft Forms

Microsoft Forms remains one of the most widely deployed survey tools in the world. For most organizations running Microsoft 365, it is the default choice for internal polls, event registration, quizzes, and quick feedback requests, and it arrives already licensed and already approved.

That position is well earned. Microsoft Forms offers genuine ease of use, distribution to every employee through Teams and Outlook, governance that rides on the Microsoft 365 tenant, and a rating of 4.4 out of 5 across 476 reviews on G2 as of August 2026.

Increasingly, however, teams are asking a different question: is Microsoft Forms still the right tool for the work it has quietly absorbed?

The answer depends less on feature parity than on what kind of work you are actually doing.

Several triggers commonly push teams to look for an alternative. Native reporting stops rendering charts above 50,000 responses. Branching cannot route backward or evaluate two conditions at once. File upload is unavailable on anonymous forms.

Advanced methods such as conjoint analysis and Maximum Difference Scaling, commonly called MaxDiff, have no home in Microsoft Forms at all. And a growing number of teams now want research that AI agents can design, field, and synthesize, rather than a form that a person fills in.

Seven platforms are worth evaluating, and they solve different problems:

Sprig, the enterprise survey platform powered by AI agents
Qualtrics, the deepest documented methodology toolkit
SurveyMonkey, the broadest distribution and panel reach
Typeform, the strongest respondent experience
Jotform, the operational form builder with payments and signatures
QuestionPro, the widest pricing-research coverage at accessible tiers
Alchemer, the only platform here with a genuine reach simulator

Four of the seven platforms below are the wrong answer for most readers of this page. Rather than declaring a single winner, we'll examine where each platform excels, where it falls short, and which types of organizations are most likely to benefit.

Is Microsoft Forms still worth it?

Microsoft Forms is worth keeping for most of what it is currently used for. Do you actually need to replace Microsoft Forms? For a large share of teams, the honest answer is no.

Three profiles should generally stay put.

Teams collecting internal responses from fewer than 50,000 people, where native charts and Excel export are typically sufficient.

Teams running registration, intake, and quizzes, where the form itself is the deliverable.

And teams whose security posture depends on data never leaving the Microsoft 365 tenant, where adding a vendor generally means adding a review.

Migration cost is a real reason not to move. Microsoft Forms is already licensed, already covered by an existing data processing agreement, and already through the security review that every alternative on this page will need to pass.

But the market has changed significantly over the past few years, and so has the work.

Teams that switch typically want one or more of the following:

Reporting that survives above 50,000 responses
Multi-condition logic and answer-option randomization
Response quotas and screener questions
Advanced methods such as conjoint analysis and MaxDiff
Panel access for audiences outside the organization
In-product targeting on a website or mobile app
AI that designs and synthesizes rather than only drafts

These aren't necessarily shortcomings of Microsoft Forms. In many cases, they're the result of research work landing in a tool that was built for forms.

Why organizations look for Microsoft Forms alternatives

Reporting that stops working at scale

Microsoft Forms documents a ceiling of up to 5,000,000 responses per form for organizational accounts, dropping to 50,000 in the government environments Microsoft calls GCC High and Department of Defense. The headline figure sounds generous until the reporting caveat is read alongside it.

Above 50,000 responses, Microsoft documents that summary charts and graphs, viewing individual responses from the Forms site, printing, sharing a summary link, and manual grading all stop working.

The response ceiling is generally not the constraint. The reporting ceiling is, and it sits two orders of magnitude lower. Source: Form, question, response, and character limits in Microsoft Forms.

Logic that cannot express a study

Microsoft documents branching as forward-only and per-answer. Its own guidance states that "you can only branch to a question that comes after the current one, and not a preceding question," and warns that attempting to branch backward "will break the experience."

Multi-condition logic, AND and OR operators, and compound conditions are not published.

Neither is answer-option randomization. Microsoft Forms documents a Shuffle questions setting that randomizes question order only, which leaves order bias inside every multiple-choice list untouched.

Audience limits that only appear externally

Microsoft Forms generally handles internal audiences well and external audiences less completely.

File upload questions are documented as available only when "Only people in my organization can respond" or "Specific people in my organization can respond" is selected, so an anonymous customer-facing form cannot accept a file at all.

Distribution is documented at up to 100 individual names or group names, with up to 20 of those being groups. And the One response per person setting is documented as applying "only within a continuous set of 50,000 responses."

No published research methodology

Microsoft Forms does not publish conjoint analysis, MaxDiff, TURF, Van Westendorp, or Gabor-Granger. It also does not publish response quotas, screener logic, answer piping, loop and merge, or cross-survey reporting.

That is not a defect. Microsoft Forms is not marketed as a research platform.

But a team asked to size a market, test a price, or prioritize a feature set generally has no methodological path forward inside it.

Analysis that stops at word clouds

Microsoft's own results documentation lists summary charts, average completion time, per-question drill-down, individual response views, Excel export with a live data connection, and word clouds, which the Forms service description marks as unavailable in Government plans. Copilot adds response summarization and follow-up questions for licensed users.

Sentiment analysis, thematic coding, and a native Power BI connector are not published for Microsoft Forms.

Text analysis beyond word clouds typically requires exporting to Excel or routing through Power Automate and AI Builder, which is a separately licensed Power Platform component.

Governance that is strong on some axes and silent on others

Microsoft Forms is genuinely strong on tenant governance. Microsoft's Forms administrator documentation names four controls: External sharing with four sub-options, Record names by default, Internal phishing protection, and per-user enablement.

Microsoft documents that eDiscovery Premium discovers form definitions and responses and supports holds through the underlying Exchange mailbox, currently as a preview capability.

Two gaps are worth knowing before a compliance review finds them, and neither is as severe as competing pages often claim.

Microsoft lists Forms among services that "don't have specific commitments for data residency." The same page documents regional defaults: European Union and EFTA storage for those tenants, Europe for other European tenants, Australia for Australian tenants provisioned after October 12, 2022, and the United States for everywhere else.

Forms therefore has regional defaults without a contractual residency commitment, which is a distinction a procurement team will care about. Microsoft Forms is also not currently listed as a supported workload for Purview retention policies, and the admin settings above are documented for Office 365 Education and Microsoft 365 Apps for business customers, so confirm the control list against your own tenant.

AI that is real, licensed, and mid-transition

Microsoft has shipped meaningful AI into Forms, and it is gated rather than absent.

Copilot in Forms requires a Microsoft 365 account and a Copilot license. Microsoft's Copilot in Forms support page documents a split experience: commercial licensed users get a Microsoft 365 Copilot chat pane, while consumer users get a refinement bar on credit-based licenses.

The standalone Surveys Agent is being withdrawn. As of August 17, 2026, Microsoft's Surveys Agent support page states that "in July and August 2026, Surveys agent will be formally retired," with users directed to the integrated Copilot experience in Forms instead.

That window is closing as this guide publishes, so confirm current status before relying on the agent. Any evaluation running now should assess the integrated Copilot experience rather than the agent.

What to look for in a Microsoft Forms alternative

Decide whether you need a form or a study

Start here, because it determines which half of this page matters. A form captures a transaction. A study answers a question.

The distinction is practical rather than philosophical. If the output is a record, you generally need a form builder. If the output is evidence that will inform a decision, you typically need a research platform.

Teams frequently discover they need both, and that is a legitimate outcome of this evaluation, not a failure of it.

The form-or-study router

Score your primary use case against these eight conditions. Each condition routes to a class of platform, not to a single vendor.

Three or more research conditions generally means a survey platform. Any single operational condition typically means a form builder stays in the stack regardless of what else you buy, and mixed results commonly mean both.

Enterprise readiness

Enterprise readiness is the criterion where Microsoft sets a high bar and challengers vary widely. Ask for named primitives rather than the phrase itself.

Key questions include:

Which identity providers are supported for single sign-on (SSO)?
Is System for Cross-Domain Identity Management (SCIM) provisioning published?
What exactly do the audit logs record, and for how long?
Which data residency regions are named and selectable?
Which certifications belong to the vendor and not its cloud provider?

That last question separates vendors more than any other. Several platforms commonly publish certifications that in fact belong to Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud, and a procurement team reading carefully will notice.

Research capabilities

Research capability should be assessed as published question types and published methods, not as a general impression of depth.

Alchemer documents exactly 43 question types. QuestionPro claims more than 80. Sprig documents 14, including conjoint analysis and MaxDiff at the Enterprise tier.

Counts generally matter less than coverage of the specific methods your program needs. A team that runs pricing research every quarter should weight Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger heavily, and only Qualtrics and QuestionPro publish both.

AI capabilities

Every platform on this page now markets AI, so the useful question is what the AI is allowed to do. Adding AI to a survey builder makes existing tasks faster. Building the platform around AI changes how research is conducted.

Procurement questions worth asking verbatim:

Can the AI recommend an appropriate research methodology?
Can the AI detect broken or conflicting survey logic before launch?
Can the AI ask a respondent a contextual follow-up question?
Can the AI analyze open-ended responses without an export?
Can an external agent create a study through an API?
Does a human approve every study before it reaches respondents?
Is response data used to train the vendor's models?
Can an administrator revoke agent access instantly?

The last three separate governed AI from convenient AI, and they are the questions a security team will ask after marketing has left the room.

Survey distribution

Distribution determines who you can actually reach. Microsoft Forms distributes by link, embed, Teams, and Outlook, and its multi-language documentation caps a single form at 11 languages with manual translation.

Ask which channels are published: email with a custom sending domain, shareable links, QR codes, SMS, website intercepts, in-product surveys on web and mobile, offline collection, and panels.

SurveyMonkey documents the widest set, including a mobile software development kit and offline kiosk collection. Typeform publishes roughly half as many and no offline mode.

Consider staying on Microsoft Forms and adding one thing

Before evaluating a replacement, price the cheapest option: keeping Microsoft Forms and adding reporting around it. No competing page on this topic will suggest it, and for a meaningful share of teams it is the right answer.

The pattern is Forms for collection, Power Automate for routing, and a reporting tool for analysis. Microsoft documents a Forms connector with a "When a new response is submitted" trigger plus actions to retrieve form and response details, which is enough to push each submission into Dataverse, Excel, or a downstream system.

Its ceiling is threefold. Microsoft publishes no native Power BI connector for Forms, so reporting typically arrives through an intermediate step. The connector is throttled at 300 calls per 60 seconds and works only with organizational accounts. And no amount of routing adds quotas, screeners, panels, in-product targeting, or a single research method.

Use this path when your gap is analysis. Replace Forms when your gap is design.

Migration effort

Migration effort is unusually low leaving Microsoft Forms, and honesty here cuts against the case for switching.

There is generally no complex logic to port, no quota structure to rebuild, and no advanced question types to recreate, because Microsoft Forms does not publish them.

The real migration cost is behavioral. Hundreds of employees know how to make a form in Microsoft Forms, and any replacement inherits that expectation.

Total cost of ownership

Total cost of ownership is where Microsoft Forms wins outright and every alternative loses. Microsoft Forms is included with Microsoft 365 plans an organization already holds.

Every platform on this page is a new line item, a new vendor review, and a new data processing agreement.

The honest framing is not that alternatives are cheaper. It is that they do work Microsoft Forms does not do, and the question is whether that work is worth a new contract.

Quick comparison: best Microsoft Forms alternatives

Each platform below solves a different version of the Microsoft Forms problem. No platform is objectively better than Microsoft Forms in every category, and Microsoft Forms beats all seven on procurement simplicity.

The Considerations column carries a real entry for every platform, Sprig included.

| Platform | Best for | Key strengths | Potential considerations | |:------------:|:-------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------:| | Sprig | Teams building an AI-agent research program | Design, Field, and Synthesize agents, in-product targeting on web and mobile, governed Model Context Protocol (MCP) access | No file upload question type, no SCIM published, United States hosting only | | Qualtrics | Large research and experience programs | Conjoint, MaxDiff, TURF simulator, Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, FedRAMP High | Steep learning curve, heaviest administration, no documented first-party MCP server | | SurveyMonkey | Broad organization-wide deployment | Eight documented collectors, 335M+ panel reach, SCIM, Claude and ChatGPT connectors | Conjoint and Gabor-Granger not published, methods packaged as templates | | Typeform | Respondent experience and conversational research | Completion-oriented design, AI-moderated Research Flow, documented MCP server, ISO 42001 | No conjoint, MaxDiff, or TURF, no SCIM, no offline collection | | Jotform | Operational forms with payments and signatures | Payments across 30+ gateways, Jotform Sign, approval workflows, 19 data centers | No panel, no quotas, no in-product targeting, no research methods | | QuestionPro | Pricing research on a smaller budget | Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger, adaptive conjoint, 22M panel, ISO 27001:2022 | SCIM not published, SOC 2 scoped to data centers, product surface changing fast | | Alchemer | Feature prioritization and reach modeling | TURF report with a reach simulator, 43 question types, mobile SDK and website intercept | No Van Westendorp or Gabor-Granger, no MCP server, mid-restructure product naming |

Which alternative is right for you?

Choose Sprig if you want research designed, fielded, and synthesized by AI agents, need in-product targeting on a website or mobile app, and want agent access governed by role scoping and human approval rather than an open API key.

Choose Qualtrics if you run a large program with dedicated researchers, need conjoint and MaxDiff as first-class project types, and operate in a sector where FedRAMP High authorization is a procurement requirement.

Choose SurveyMonkey if you need to deploy surveys to many teams quickly, want the widest published reach here at 335M+ people across 130+ countries through partner networks rather than a proprietary managed panel, and require SCIM provisioning by name.

Choose Typeform if respondent completion matters more than methodological depth, you want AI-moderated interviews across text, voice, and video, and an ISO 42001 certification for artificial intelligence management is useful to your risk team.

Choose Jotform if the form is the business process, you collect payments or signatures, and you need approvals routed with escalation rather than analyzed as a dataset.

Choose QuestionPro if pricing research is central, you want Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger as dedicated question types, and you need data residency in a region such as India, the United Arab Emirates, or Saudi Arabia.

Choose Alchemer if you prioritize features or product bundles, need real reach modeling rather than a static TURF table, and want website intercepts and mobile in-app surveys in one platform.

The following sections examine each platform in more detail.

The 7 best Microsoft Forms alternatives

Each review below covers what the platform publishes, where it excels, where it falls short, and who it fits. Sprig appears first because this guide is published by Sprig, and the limitations section for Sprig is written to the same standard as the others.

1. Sprig

Best AI-native Microsoft Forms alternative

Sprig is best for product, research, and customer experience teams that have outgrown form-shaped feedback and want studies designed, fielded, and synthesized with AI agents across in-product, email, link, and panel distribution.

Sprig is an enterprise survey platform powered by AI agents. Rather than adding AI features onto a form builder, Sprig organizes the research lifecycle around three specialized agents.

The Design Agent turns a research goal into a launch-ready study. It proposes question flow and logic, recommends measurement frameworks, detects conflicting logic, and flags dead ends before respondents encounter them. Researchers remain responsible for approving the final design.

The Field Agent delivers surveys conversationally, one question at a time, personalizing from user attributes and product usage and generating contextual follow-up questions. Those AI follow-ups can be turned off.

The Synthesize Agent converts responses into structured reports, connecting qualitative feedback to quantitative signals and grounding each insight in the underlying responses. Every generated insight remains editable.

Sprig documents 14 question types, including Rank Order, MaxDiff, and Conjoint at the Enterprise tier. Logic includes skip logic, display logic, response piping, and attribute piping, with randomization at three levels: response options, questions within a page, and pages within a survey.

Sprig's own documentation covers in-product surveys on websites and web applications, native mobile applications through SDKs for iOS, Android, React Native, and Flutter, email from your own sending domain, shareable links, and panels of 300K+ verified participants filtered by 300+ targeting attributes.

The MCP server at mcp.sprig.com is the capability most relevant to teams evaluating AI workflows, and its governance is documented rather than implied.

Access is scoped by OAuth to the user's Sprig role and enforced on every request. Responses return in capped batches of up to 1,000 rather than a bulk dump.

Response data is not used to train models. MCP-created studies are saved as drafts that a human approves in the Sprig app.

And administrators can revoke every active connection org-wide with a single kill switch.

Where Sprig excels

AI agents across the research lifecycle
In-product targeting on web and mobile
Session replay attached to responses
Governed agent and MCP access
Conversational survey delivery
Panel recruitment with incentive payout

Sprig limitations

Sprig's advanced methodology coverage is newer than the long-established research platforms. Conjoint analysis and MaxDiff are published as Enterprise question types, but Total Unduplicated Reach and Frequency, commonly called TURF, is not. Neither is Van Westendorp, and Gabor-Granger is not published as a Sprig question type in any form.

Sprig also does not publish weighting, sample-size guidance, statistical power calculations, or significance testing, and it does not publish its MaxDiff estimation methodology.

Sprig does not publish a file upload question type, SCIM provisioning, SMS as a distribution channel, its own ISO 27001 certificate, warehouse connectors for Snowflake, BigQuery, or Redshift, or hosting outside the United States.

Teams that require automated directory deprovisioning or European data residency should treat those as open items.

Sprig's panel of 300K+ verified participants is also the smallest on this page by a wide margin. SurveyMonkey publishes 335M+ reach and QuestionPro publishes 22 million panelists, and for large-sample general-population work both are the stronger choice.

Sprig's G2 rating is 4.3 out of 5 across 199 reviews as of August 2026, the smallest review base on this page. It sits below all six alternatives and two orders of magnitude below SurveyMonkey's 23,900.

Sprig also does not appear in the 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Voice of the Customer Platforms, where Qualtrics is a Leader and Alchemer a Challenger.

Bottom line on Sprig

Sprig isn't trying to be a better form builder. Instead, it treats research as a workflow that agents can run end to end while researchers keep control of design and interpretation.

If your primary objective is moving from a research question to defensible evidence faster, Sprig is one of the strongest Microsoft Forms alternatives to evaluate.

Winner on AI-native research workflow: Sprig. Sprig loses to Qualtrics and QuestionPro on published methodology, to SurveyMonkey on enterprise provisioning and panel scale, to Jotform and QuestionPro on data residency, and to Microsoft Forms on total cost of ownership.

2. Qualtrics

Qualtrics is best for large organizations with dedicated researchers, complex governance requirements, and methodology needs spanning pricing research, brand tracking, and segmentation.

Qualtrics publishes its platform as three suites: XM for Customer Experience, XM for Employee Experience, and XM for Strategy and Research. Separately, Qualtrics Edge packages market research capabilities including Edge Audiences and Edge Instant Insights.

Methodological coverage is the deepest of any platform here. Qualtrics' own support documentation covers conjoint analysis as a dedicated project type, MaxDiff with a TURF simulator, cluster analysis for segmentation, brand tracker projects, and both Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger pricing studies.

Qualtrics also publishes FedRAMP High authorization, ISO 27001, HITRUST, and ISO 42001 for artificial intelligence management, which together often make it the default answer in regulated and public-sector procurement.

Its synthetic panel documentation is unusually candid about limits. Qualtrics' synthetic panels documentation states that they currently cover the United States general population in English only, run from 50 to 10,000 responses, and perform poorly on questions about past behaviors, detailed recall, and brand awareness.

Where Qualtrics excels

Conjoint and MaxDiff project types
TURF simulator and segmentation tools
Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger
FedRAMP High, HITRUST, and ISO 42001
Deepest administrative controls

Qualtrics limitations

Qualtrics is often deeply configurable in ways that require trained users, and its own reviewers frequently cite a steep learning curve.

Its G2 rating on the market research listing is 4.4 out of 5 across 3,018 reviews as of August 2026, and reviewers commonly report dashboard performance issues on larger datasets.

On MCP, Qualtrics' public statements and its own documentation conflict. Qualtrics has stated that it offers an MCP server, its developer API reference documents none, and analyst coverage says none exists. Treat the question as open rather than settled.

Several enterprise primitives, including SCIM and a named list of data residency regions, are also not published clearly on its own security pages.

Bottom line on Qualtrics

Qualtrics is the wrong purchase for a team without a trained researcher, and its own reviewers say so.

If your program needs conjoint, MaxDiff, and pricing research as first-class capabilities and you have the team to operate them, Qualtrics is the most complete methodological option on this list.

Winner on methodology depth and regulated procurement: Qualtrics

3. SurveyMonkey

SurveyMonkey is best for organizations that need many teams collecting responses quickly, with the broadest distribution options and the largest panel reach of any platform here.

SurveyMonkey's send documentation lists eight collectors: web link and QR code, email invitation, website embed or pop-up, manual data entry, a mobile software development kit, offline kiosk collection, text message, and purchased responses through SurveyMonkey Audience.

SurveyMonkey Audience publishes the most specific reach figures in this comparison, at more than 335M people across over 130 countries with over 200 targeting options, described on its own page as reach through trusted partners.

Advanced methods arrive through SurveyMonkey LaunchPad, which packages MaxDiff, TURF simulations, Van Westendorp price optimization, monadic testing, and key driver analysis as automated study templates rather than configurable engines. Conjoint analysis and Gabor-Granger are not published as product capabilities.

On enterprise administration, SurveyMonkey's published enterprise feature list is the only one here that names SCIM, alongside SAML single sign-on, Team Activity logging, and data centers in Ireland and Canada.

Where SurveyMonkey excels

Eight documented distribution collectors
Partner panel reach of 335M+ people
SCIM provisioning published by name
First-party Claude and ChatGPT connectors
Automated market research templates

SurveyMonkey limitations

SurveyMonkey does not publish conjoint analysis or Gabor-Granger as product capabilities, which commonly limits pricing and tradeoff research.

Its methods are packaged as templates, so teams that need to configure a design rather than run a preset will typically find less room than in Qualtrics or QuestionPro.

SurveyMonkey also does not publish FedRAMP authorization, and its published 335M+ figure reads as network reach rather than a proprietary managed panel.

Bottom line on SurveyMonkey

SurveyMonkey trades configurability for reach, and that trade suits organizations rolling out survey capability across many teams at once.

If your priority is reaching the widest set of audiences through the widest set of channels with minimal training, SurveyMonkey is the most broadly capable Microsoft Forms alternative.

Winner on distribution breadth and panel scale: SurveyMonkey

4. Typeform

Typeform is best for teams whose respondents are customers rather than employees, where completion rate and brand experience matter more than methodological depth.

Typeform's design choice is its differentiator. Presenting one question at a time in a conversational format generally produces a materially better respondent experience than a paginated form.

Typeform's Capterra rating is 4.7 out of 5 across 973 reviews as of August 2026, second in this comparison to QuestionPro's 4.8 across 533.

Typeform moved into research in 2026. Research Flow, launched in June 2026, adds AI-moderated research across text, voice, and video, recruitment from verified global panels with automated screening and quota management, and automatic transcription, theme extraction, and sentiment analysis.

Typeform is also one of four platforms here publishing a documented first-party MCP server. Its developer help center names a global endpoint and European endpoints, OAuth-only authentication, and tools that create and update forms and summarize responses.

Typeform achieved ISO 42001 certification for artificial intelligence management systems in June 2026. Qualtrics and QuestionPro also publish ISO 42001, and Sprig does not.

Where Typeform excels

Conversational one-question-at-a-time delivery
AI-moderated research across voice and video
Documented MCP server with European endpoints
ISO 42001 for artificial intelligence management
Response enrichment and automated follow-ups

Typeform limitations

Typeform publishes none of the five advanced methods in this comparison. Conjoint analysis, MaxDiff, TURF, Van Westendorp, and Gabor-Granger are all absent, and its own Research Flow page describes use cases without naming analytical methodologies.

Typeform also does not publish SCIM, a mobile software development kit, or offline collection, and its organization activity log only displays activity from April 2024 onward.

G2 categorizes Typeform under online form builders rather than survey software, which is a fair reflection of where it typically sits.

Bottom line on Typeform

Typeform competes on how it feels to be the respondent, and increasingly on AI-moderated qualitative depth, while publishing none of the five quantitative methods in this comparison.

If your surveys go to customers and completion rate is your binding constraint, Typeform is the strongest Microsoft Forms alternative to evaluate.

Winner on respondent experience: Typeform

5. Jotform

Jotform is best for operational data collection where the form is the business process, including payment collection, signature capture, and multi-step approvals.

Jotform is the honest answer for a large share of what Microsoft Forms is actually used for. Registration, intake, requests, and document collection are transactions rather than studies, and no research platform on this page generally serves them well.

Payment collection is Jotform's strongest position, and Jotform publishes 30+ payment gateways including Stripe, PayPal, Square, and Authorize.Net, plus Apple Pay and Google Pay. Jotform Sign adds legally binding signatures with automatic conversion to PDF.

Jotform's published Workflows documentation covers what survey platforms do not: group and individual approvals, conditional branching with branch merging, parallel processes, task assignment, reminders and due dates, and automatic escalation past a deadline.

For regulated intake, Jotform publishes HIPAA features with a signed business associate agreement on higher tiers, and its AI Agents run on Google Gemini through Vertex AI rather than OpenAI for HIPAA accounts.

Jotform also publishes 19 data centers across 15 countries for dedicated instances, a first-party MCP server, and the highest G2 rating in this comparison at 4.7 out of 5 across 5,423 reviews as of August 2026.

Where Jotform excels

Payments across 30+ gateways
Legally binding e-signatures
Approval workflows with automatic escalation
HIPAA intake with a business associate agreement
19 data centers across 15 countries

Jotform limitations

Jotform publishes no research capability. There is no respondent panel, no quota or screener management, no in-product targeting through an SDK, and no conjoint, MaxDiff, or TURF. Jotform's own support guidance suggests approximating MaxDiff with an input table or orderable list widget.

Its SOC 2 Type II attestation is scoped to the dedicated environment rather than the whole company, and the ISO 27001 certifications on its security page belong to its cloud providers rather than to Jotform.

Bottom line on Jotform

Jotform isn't a survey platform, and it does not claim to be. Instead, it turns forms into operational workflows that move money, signatures, and approvals.

If the Microsoft Forms you are replacing is doing registration and intake rather than research, Jotform is the correct alternative and no research platform will serve you better.

Winner on operational forms: Jotform

6. QuestionPro

QuestionPro is best for teams that need the full pricing-research toolkit and wide data residency options without an enterprise research budget.

QuestionPro publishes the widest pricing-research coverage of any platform in this comparison.

Van Westendorp price sensitivity and Gabor-Granger are both dedicated question types, choice-based and adaptive conjoint are documented with a market simulator that forecasts share for products that do not yet exist, and anchored MaxDiff is named explicitly.

QuestionPro's Audience page publishes a first-party panel of 22 million panelists with more than 300 profile data points per member, plus named specialty panels covering small business owners, verified college students, and veterinarians.

On agent access, QuestionPro publicly describes an MCP server in a June 2026 blog post and in its help center, with authorization scoped to the user's existing platform permissions.

No MCP server appears in QuestionPro's published API reference, so treat this as announced rather than fully documented.

QuestionPro publishes its own ISO 27001:2022 certificate and ISO 42001 for artificial intelligence management, plus eight named data residency regions including Toronto, Dubai, Riyadh, Mumbai, and Victoria.

Where QuestionPro excels

Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger question types
Adaptive conjoint with a market simulator
Panel of 22 million with 300+ profile points
Eight named data residency regions
Own ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 42001

QuestionPro limitations

QuestionPro's SOC 2 language covers periodic audits of its data centers rather than a QuestionPro attestation, which a security reviewer will read carefully. SCIM provisioning is not published, and its TURF implementation is a static analysis with no reach simulator.

The product surface is also moving quickly. QuestionPro merged with Trymata in February 2026 and acquired Fathom in April 2026, so product naming and packaging are actively changing, and parts of its own security page still carry language dated to 2019.

Bottom line on QuestionPro

QuestionPro publishes more documented method coverage than its market position suggests, which suits teams whose research is quantitative and price-sensitive.

If you need Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, and conjoint simulation in one platform with data residency outside North America and Europe, QuestionPro publishes more documented method coverage per unit of cost than anything else here.

Winner on pricing research coverage: QuestionPro

7. Alchemer

Alchemer is best for teams prioritizing features or product bundles, and organizations combining direct surveys with review and reputation feedback.

Alchemer's survey documentation states a count of 43 question types, including semantic differential, image heatmap, text highlighter, continuous sum, card sorting, and video and audio sentiment. That figure appears in a datasheet rather than a currently maintained help page, so treat 43 as indicative rather than confirmed.

Its clearest lead is TURF. Alchemer publishes a native TURF report with a genuine simulator: the user sets a simulation level, and the system evaluates every possible combination up to that level, returning unduplicated reach and percentage reach of the target audience. Alchemer documents the simulation level as capped at 7 options, citing computational constraints.

Qualtrics has a MaxDiff TURF simulator, QuestionPro has TURF without one, and no other platform here publishes reach modeling at all.

Alchemer's security and international-customer pages publish SOC 2 Type 2 without qualification, four named data residency regions covering the United States, Frankfurt, Montreal, and Australia, more than 200 survey translation languages with right-to-left support, and both a mobile SDK and website intercepts.

Alchemer was positioned as a Challenger in the 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Voice of the Customer Platforms, announced in March 2026, its fifth consecutive inclusion.

Where Alchemer excels

TURF report with a reach simulator
A documented 43 question types
Unqualified SOC 2 Type 2 attestation
Four named data residency regions
Mobile SDK and website intercepts

Alchemer limitations

Alchemer publishes neither Van Westendorp nor Gabor-Granger, so pricing research has no dedicated home. Its MaxDiff scoring is a simple count formula rather than hierarchical Bayesian estimation, and anchored MaxDiff is not published.

Alchemer does not publish an MCP server, and its product taxonomy is mid-restructure following the Chatmeter acquisition, with Alchemer Workflow, Mobile, and Panels no longer named on its homepage while remaining in its documentation.

Its panel is brokered through third parties at roughly 7 million respondents across 50 countries, with only four published targeting attributes.

Bottom line on Alchemer

Alchemer's TURF simulator answers one question better than anything else here, and its pricing-research shelf is empty. Buy it for portfolio and reach decisions, and budget for a second tool if you also need Van Westendorp.

If you regularly ask which three features cover the most customers, Alchemer's simulator is the reason to shortlist it.

Winner on reach modeling: Alchemer

Comparison matrix: Microsoft Forms and seven alternatives

The matrix below rates each platform on published capability using one scale throughout: Excellent, Strong, Good, Moderate, Basic, Limited. Ratings reflect what each vendor documents publicly as of August 2026, not internal testing.

Note the rows where rivals beat Sprig. That is the point of publishing the matrix instead of a list of Sprig strengths.

Sprig rates Limited on data residency and Moderate on identity and provisioning because it publishes neither non-United States hosting nor SCIM. Microsoft Forms rates Moderate on residency because Microsoft publishes regional storage defaults without a contractual commitment.

Sprig rates Moderate on panel access because 300K+ verified participants is the smallest published audience here, against SurveyMonkey's 335M+ reach and QuestionPro's 22 million panelists.

Sprig rates Basic on review base because 199 G2 reviews is the smallest base on this page, below all six alternatives.

Microsoft Forms compared directly

Microsoft Forms vs. Sprig

Microsoft Forms and Sprig are built for different jobs. Microsoft Forms is designed so anyone in an organization can publish a form in minutes. Sprig is designed so a research question becomes defensible evidence without manual assembly at each step.

Both handle a short satisfaction survey adequately. For a five-question internal poll, Microsoft Forms is faster to launch and requires no procurement.

They diverge as soon as the study needs structure. Sprig publishes quotas with screener questions, response and attribute piping, three levels of randomization, and conjoint and MaxDiff at the Enterprise tier. Microsoft Forms publishes none of those.

On AI, both publish real capability with different scope. Copilot in Forms drafts questions, rewrites them, and summarizes responses for licensed users.

Sprig's agents recommend methodology, validate logic against intent, deliver conversationally with contextual follow-ups, and produce reports grounded in responses. Researchers remain responsible for approving what launches in either tool.

On distribution, Microsoft Forms typically reaches employees through Teams and Outlook more easily than any alternative. Sprig reaches users inside a product and respondents outside the organization, which Microsoft Forms does not do.

On adoption, Microsoft Forms typically wins on floor and Sprig on ceiling. Every Microsoft 365 user can already build a form, while Sprig generally requires onboarding a team that will then be able to run studies Microsoft Forms cannot express.

Choose Microsoft Forms if

Collects responses from employees inside your tenant using simple, mostly linear question flows
Cannot absorb a new vendor security review without slowing the work down materially
Has no incremental budget available for a survey platform this fiscal year
Treats the completed form itself as the deliverable rather than as evidence

Choose Sprig if

Feeds product and roadmap decisions that a committee will later ask you to defend
Needs respondents targeted inside a web or mobile product by their actual behavior
Wants AI agents to design studies, field them conversationally, and synthesize results
Requires participants from outside your customer list through a recruited panel

Microsoft Forms and Sprig frequently coexist, with Forms keeping internal operational forms and Sprig carrying the research program.

Microsoft Forms vs. Jotform

Microsoft Forms and Jotform compete on the same job, and it is not research. Both are built for collecting structured submissions, and Jotform extends that into workflow.

Both handle basic data collection well. For an internal signup sheet, Microsoft Forms is generally the simpler choice, since it typically needs no additional license.

They typically diverge on what happens after submission. Jotform publishes payment collection across dozens of gateways, legally binding e-signatures through Jotform Sign, and approval routing with parallel branches, due dates, and automatic escalation.

On AI, Jotform publishes AI Agents that collect data conversationally across phone, WhatsApp, SMS, Instagram, and kiosk, which is wider channel coverage than any survey platform here. Microsoft Forms publishes Copilot drafting and response summarization for licensed users.

On governance, the comparison is closer than it looks. Microsoft Forms inherits tenant controls, eDiscovery, and phishing protection. Jotform publishes more granular data residency and its own PCI DSS Level 1 status, though its SOC 2 Type II is scoped to dedicated environments.

Choose Microsoft Forms if

Keeps every form and every response inside the Microsoft 365 tenant you already govern
Collects no payments and captures no legally binding signatures anywhere in the process
Routes approvals through a separate system that already works well enough
Requires zero incremental vendor cost and zero additional procurement review

Choose Jotform if

Collects payments inside the form through a published gateway such as Stripe or PayPal
Routes submissions through multi-step approvals with due dates and automatic escalation
Requires external or anonymous respondents to upload files, which Microsoft Forms blocks
Needs named data residency for form data in a specific country or region

Neither platform answers a research question, so a team needing quotas, panels, or methodology should evaluate a survey platform alongside whichever of these two it keeps.

Microsoft Forms vs. SurveyMonkey

Microsoft Forms and SurveyMonkey occupy adjacent positions with different reach. Microsoft Forms is the tool everyone already has, and SurveyMonkey is the tool most organizations buy first when Forms runs out.

Both are easy to learn. For a simple internal survey, the practical difference is often small and Microsoft Forms costs nothing incremental.

They generally diverge on audience and administration. SurveyMonkey publishes eight collectors including a mobile software development kit, offline kiosk collection, and text message, plus a panel with published reach of 335M+ people across 130+ countries.

On AI, SurveyMonkey publishes first-party connectors for Claude and ChatGPT that search, create, and edit surveys and summarize results, which it shipped ahead of most enterprise rivals. Microsoft's advantage is that Copilot already sits inside the productivity tools its users work in daily.

On governance, Microsoft Forms generally benefits from tenant-level identity that SurveyMonkey has to publish separately, and SurveyMonkey does publish it, including SCIM and named regional data centers.

Choose Microsoft Forms if

Surveys employees inside your tenant rather than customers or the general population
Stays comfortably below the 50,000-response ceiling where native reporting stops working
Needs neither panel recruitment nor response quotas to answer its questions
Values procurement simplicity above any additional research capability

Choose SurveyMonkey if

Needs respondents from outside your organization at large sample sizes across many countries
Expects many teams to build and run their own surveys with minimal training
Requires SCIM provisioning and named regional data centers as procurement conditions
Wants automated market research templates that return results without statistical modeling

Organizations consolidating survey tools often keep Microsoft Forms for internal operational forms while standardizing customer research on a single purchased platform.

Which Microsoft Forms alternative fits your situation

If your forms collect payments or signatures

Jotform is the answer, and no research platform substitutes for it. Payments across 30+ gateways, Jotform Sign, and approval workflows with escalation are capabilities that Sprig, Qualtrics, and SurveyMonkey do not publish at all.

If you need pricing research

Qualtrics and QuestionPro are the only platforms here publishing both Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger. QuestionPro adds adaptive conjoint with a market simulator, and Qualtrics adds a MaxDiff TURF simulator with segmentation.

If you want research that AI agents can run

Sprig, QuestionPro, Typeform, and Jotform all publish first-party MCP servers. Sprig publishes the most governance detail, including role-scoped access enforced on every request and draft-only study creation that a human must approve.

If you are consolidating survey tools across departments

SurveyMonkey generally deploys most easily across many teams, with SCIM provisioning, Team Activity logging, and the shallowest learning curve among the enterprise options. Alchemer is typically the stronger choice where departments need mobile in-app feedback.

If your compliance review requires named data residency

QuestionPro publishes eight named regions, Jotform publishes 19 data centers across 15 countries for dedicated instances, and Alchemer publishes four. Sprig publishes United States hosting only, and Microsoft publishes regional Forms defaults without a contractual commitment.

There is no universal winner

No single platform can be the best choice for every organization. Sprig wins two dimensions outright, in-product targeting and AI-native research workflow, and loses methodology, panel scale, provisioning, data residency, and total cost of ownership to platforms named on this page.

The right answer depends on which of those problems is currently costing you the most.

Signs it's time to replace Microsoft Forms

Most organizations don't wake up one day and decide to replace Microsoft Forms. The decision typically arrives after a specific request cannot be met.

The clearest signal is a study you cannot design. When someone asks which of six features to build first, or what price a segment will accept, and the honest answer is that the tool cannot express the question, the gap is methodological rather than cosmetic.

A second signal is export becoming the analysis step. If every meaningful insight requires pulling responses into Excel and rebuilding charts by hand, the platform is functioning as a collection endpoint and the analysis work has moved to people.

A third signal is audience friction. Teams that repeatedly work around limits on anonymous respondents, file uploads, or distribution lists are commonly spending effort on plumbing that a research platform typically handles natively.

A fourth signal is duplicated tooling. When departments have quietly bought their own survey tools because Microsoft Forms could not do what they needed, the organization is generally already paying for alternatives without governing them.

A fifth signal is an AI expectation the tool cannot meet. Copilot in Forms drafts questions and summarizes responses for licensed users, but it does not recommend a methodology, validate logic against intent, or let an external agent create a governed study.

How to migrate off Microsoft Forms

Migration from Microsoft Forms is generally simpler than migration from an enterprise survey platform, because there is less to port. Plan for behavior change rather than data engineering.

Step 1: Inventory what Microsoft Forms is actually doing. List every active form and label each one as operational or research. Most organizations find the split closer to even than expected, and the operational half typically stays on Forms or moves to a form builder.

Step 2: Separate real requirements from habits. A form that exists because someone once needed a quick poll is not a requirement. Carry forward the studies that inform decisions.

Step 3: Keep Microsoft Forms where it is working. Internal polls, quizzes, and simple registration rarely justify a migration. Running Forms alongside a research platform is a legitimate end state, not an interim compromise.

Step 4: Start with new research rather than backfilling. Launch the next real study on the new platform instead of rebuilding old forms. This surfaces gaps early, while the stakes are low.

Step 5: Rebuild your recurring templates first. Whatever runs monthly or quarterly should be the first thing recreated, because it is where consistency matters and where time savings compound.

Step 6: Export historical response data before you need it. Microsoft Forms exports to Excel, and forms created after January 2019 are discoverable through Microsoft 365 eDiscovery, currently documented as a preview capability. Pull the archives you intend to keep while the forms are still live.

Step 7: Validate governance before broad rollout. Confirm single sign-on, roles, retention, and agent access controls against your actual policy rather than a marketing page. Ask specifically about SCIM and data residency, since those are where published capability varies most.

Step 8: Train beyond the research team. The reason Microsoft Forms is everywhere is that everyone can use it. Any replacement needs a similarly low floor, or teams will quietly keep using Forms for work that has outgrown it.

Common migration challenges

The most common problem is treating the migration as a tool swap instead of a scope decision. Teams that move everything tend to overpay for operational forms on a research platform, and teams that move nothing keep hitting the same walls.

The second most common problem is losing institutional response history. Export before decommissioning, and confirm what your retention policy requires, because Microsoft Forms is not currently listed as a supported workload for Purview retention policies.

Migration is an opportunity to improve

A migration is the one moment when a team will reconsider how it asks questions. Use it to standardize your rating scales, retire questions nobody analyzes, and decide which measures deserve tracking across waves.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best Microsoft Forms alternative?

Sprig is the best Microsoft Forms alternative for teams building a research program around AI agents, with in-product targeting and governed agent access, though Sprig publishes United States hosting only and no SCIM provisioning. Jotform is the best alternative for operational forms with payments or signatures. Qualtrics and QuestionPro are the best alternatives for advanced methodology, and SurveyMonkey for organization-wide deployment.

Which Microsoft Forms alternatives publish single sign-on and SCIM provisioning?

SurveyMonkey is the only alternative here that publishes System for Cross-Domain Identity Management (SCIM) provisioning by name, alongside SAML single sign-on. Sprig, Typeform, QuestionPro, and Alchemer do not publish SCIM, and Qualtrics does not publish it clearly on its own security pages. Microsoft Forms itself inherits provisioning through Microsoft Entra ID.

Can I keep using Microsoft Forms and just add reporting?

Yes, and this is the cheapest path when the gap is analysis rather than methodology. Microsoft Forms exports to Excel with a live data connection, and Power Automate can route each submission onward to Dataverse or a reporting tool. Microsoft publishes no native Power BI connector for Forms, and the Power Automate connector is throttled at 300 calls per 60 seconds and works only with organizational accounts.

Why do organizations switch from Microsoft Forms?

Organizations typically switch from Microsoft Forms when survey work becomes research work. The most common triggers are reporting that degrades above 50,000 responses, forward-only single-condition branching, no published quotas or screeners, no advanced methods such as conjoint analysis or MaxDiff, and no panel access for audiences outside the organization.

Is Microsoft Forms good enough for customer surveys?

Microsoft Forms is adequate for simple customer surveys and limited for research programs. It publishes eight question types and distributes by link and embed, which covers a short satisfaction survey. But file upload is restricted to organizational respondents, and Microsoft Forms publishes no quotas, no panel access, and no in-product targeting.

What is the Microsoft Forms response limit?

Microsoft Forms documents up to 5,000,000 responses per form for organizational accounts, 50,000 for the United States government environments Microsoft calls GCC High and Department of Defense, and 200 or 1,000 for free and paid personal Microsoft accounts. The practical limit is lower, because Microsoft documents that summary charts, individual response views, and summary links stop working above 50,000 responses.

Does Microsoft Forms support conditional logic?

Microsoft Forms supports branching, with two documented constraints. Branching is forward-only, since Microsoft states you can only branch to a question that comes after the current one, and it is single-condition, since multi-condition logic with AND and OR operators is not published.

Which Microsoft Forms alternative has the best AI capabilities?

Sprig publishes the most complete AI research workflow, with a Design Agent for study creation, a Field Agent for conversational delivery with contextual follow-ups, and a Synthesize Agent for reporting. Researchers approve every design before launch, AI follow-ups can be disabled per study, and every generated insight remains editable. QuestionPro and Typeform also publish strong AI capabilities.

Which Microsoft Forms alternative is easiest to use?

Typeform is generally the easiest alternative for building respondent-facing surveys, and Jotform is the easiest for operational forms. Neither matches Microsoft Forms itself on time to a first simple form, since Microsoft Forms requires no new account, no procurement, and no training for anyone already using Microsoft 365.

Can I keep Microsoft Forms for internal forms and use another platform for research?

Yes, running Microsoft Forms alongside a research platform is a common and defensible end state. Microsoft Forms continues to handle internal polls, quizzes, and registration inside the tenant, while the research platform handles studies that need quotas, methodology, panels, or in-product targeting. Splitting by job avoids paying research pricing for operational forms.

Can I migrate my existing Microsoft Forms surveys?

Microsoft Forms surveys generally rebuild quickly on a new platform, because there is little to port. Microsoft Forms publishes no quotas, no piping, and no advanced question types, so migration is mostly recreating question text and simple branching. Export response history to Excel before decommissioning any form you need to retain.

How long does it take to migrate from Microsoft Forms?

Migration from Microsoft Forms typically takes days to a few weeks for the surveys themselves, which is faster than migrating from an enterprise survey platform. The longer work is organizational: agreeing which forms stay on Microsoft Forms, configuring single sign-on and roles, and training teams who are already fluent in Forms.

Does Microsoft Forms meet enterprise compliance requirements?

Microsoft Forms inherits substantial Microsoft 365 governance, including admin controls, internal phishing protection, and eDiscovery for form definitions and responses. Two gaps are documented: Microsoft lists Forms among services without specific data residency commitments, and Microsoft Forms is not currently listed as a supported workload for Purview retention policies.

What happened to the Microsoft Surveys Agent?

Microsoft documents that the Surveys agent will be formally retired in July and August 2026, with users directed to the integrated Copilot experience in Microsoft Forms. Copilot in Forms requires a Microsoft 365 account and a Copilot license, and Microsoft documents a split experience where commercial licensed users get a Copilot chat pane and consumer users get a refinement bar.

Is replacing Microsoft Forms worth it?

Replacing Microsoft Forms is worth it when the work has changed, and not before. If your team is running internal polls, quizzes, and registration, Microsoft Forms is already the most economical option available and switching adds vendor cost for capability you will not use. But if you are being asked to size a market, test a price, prioritize features, or run continuous in-product research, Microsoft Forms cannot express those questions, and the cost of that gap is measured in decisions made without evidence rather than in software spend. The practical test is whether anyone has asked you a question in the past quarter that your current tool could not answer.

Final recommendation

Choosing a Microsoft Forms alternative isn't about finding the platform most similar to Microsoft Forms. It is about deciding which job you are actually trying to do, and buying for that job specifically.

Microsoft Forms deserves the position it holds. It is included in plans organizations already own, it distributes to every employee without training, it inherits Microsoft 365 governance, and its documented ceilings of 200 questions and 400 forms per user are higher than most teams assume.

But research practice has moved. Teams are increasingly expected to produce evidence on short timelines, from audiences they do not already own, using methods that require quotas and structure, with AI participating in design and synthesis rather than only in drafting.

For organizations building that kind of program, Sprig is our top recommendation. Its Design, Field, and Synthesize agents cover the research lifecycle, and its in-product targeting reaches users inside web and mobile products.

Sprig publishes a specific MCP governance model: access scoped to the authenticated user's role, responses capped at 1,000 per call, MCP-created studies saved as drafts a human must approve, and an org-wide administrator kill switch. Researchers approve every design before launch, and every generated insight remains editable.

That recommendation carries real costs. Sprig publishes no SCIM, no hosting outside the United States, no weighting or significance testing, and the smallest panel and review base on this page. A committee weighting data residency or published methodology above workflow should choose differently.

Jotform is the right answer if your forms move money, signatures, or approvals, and it will typically serve that job better than any research platform here.

Qualtrics is the right answer for a large program with dedicated researchers and FedRAMP requirements. QuestionPro is the right answer when pricing research and data residency outside North America both matter.

SurveyMonkey is the right answer for the widest distribution and the largest panel reach. Typeform is the right answer when respondent completion is the binding constraint.

Alchemer is the right answer when you routinely ask which subset of features covers the most customers.

The decision rules follow the triggers that brought you here. Reporting that broke at scale points to any platform on this list.

Payments or signatures point to Jotform. Pricing research points to Qualtrics or QuestionPro. In-product research and AI-agent workflows point to Sprig.

Named data residency outside the United States points away from Sprig and toward QuestionPro, Jotform, or Alchemer.

Microsoft Forms, Sprig, Qualtrics, SurveyMonkey, Typeform, Jotform, QuestionPro, and Alchemer are all defensible choices for the organizations they fit.

If nobody has asked you a question in the past quarter that Microsoft Forms could not answer, keep Microsoft Forms. If someone has, the router in this guide names the class of tool that can.

A scoped evaluation beats a demo. Run one study Microsoft Forms cannot run, such as an in-product study targeted by behavior or a method Microsoft does not publish, and use your current Forms process as the control.