Microsoft gives you a very broad platform. Cordango gives you fewer decisions.
This page used to lead with a licensing maze and claim you needed trained makers or a consultant to get anywhere. Both need correcting. Microsoft’s current documentation describes Copilot turning described business requirements into an app and a data model with no coding. Premium gives an assigned user unlimited Power Apps and Pages along with connectors and Dataverse entitlements, and the per-app licence that made the old arithmetic painful stopped being sold to new customers in January 2026.
Dataverse can also be a shared, governed data layer across many applications, which is the closest thing in this whole comparison set to what Cordango does by default. What differs is who decides, and when. Power Platform hands you the pieces and the choices: which environments, which connectors, how much capacity, how governance is applied and by whom. Cordango has already made those choices, and most of them you cannot change.
Feature availability and pricing change. Every row is checked against the vendor's own current documentation, linked at the foot of this page.
Default means it is there without anyone setting it up. Available means the vendor supports it, sometimes only on a particular plan. Build or configure means it is possible and it is your work. Not a focus means the product is aimed somewhere else.
| Cordango | Power Apps | |
|---|---|---|
| Building an app by describing it | Defaultthe normal way in, alongside ready-made capabilities | DefaultCopilot turns described requirements into an app and a data model with no coding |
| Shared company records across every app | Defaultorganizations and people are platform records. There is no data model to design first. | AvailableDataverse, once somebody models it and keeps it governed |
| Organisation-level identity and roles | DefaultMicrosoft and Google sign-in on every plan, SAML and SCIM higher up | DefaultEntra ID, which is very hard to beat if you already run it |
| Authorisation inside the app | Defaultenforced below the application, per entity, per field and per command | AvailableDataverse security roles, configured per environment |
| Audit across every app | Defaultfield-level history produced by the runtime, nothing to model | AvailableDataverse auditing and Purview, once configured |
| Governance tooling at scale | Defaultone platform and one set of rules, because there is nothing else to govern | Defaultmanaged environments, DLP policies and a centre of excellence |
| Connecting outside systems | AvailableREST and MCP over your own data. Far fewer connectors than Microsoft has. | Defaultone of the largest connector ecosystems in software |
| Managed hosting | Defaultbackups, updates and patching are ours | DefaultMicrosoft runs it |
| German or EU data residency | DefaultGerman data centres, sub-processors published | DefaultEuropean and German regions are available |
| Somebody has to run the platform | Defaultnobody at your company does. There is no platform to operate. | Build or configureenvironments, capacity, DLP and application lifecycle are somebody’s job |
| Who has to build it | Defaultyou describe it, or you ask us to build it on the same core | AvailableCopilot lowers the bar a lot. Real deployments still tend to want makers or a partner. |
| What the price depends on | Defaultone contract for the platform. Apps are not priced separately. | Availableper assigned user, published. Capacity add-ons and adjacent Power Platform products still need adding up. |
Dataverse is the honest complication here. It genuinely can be one governed business-data layer that many applications share, which is the same shape Cordango argues for. Anyone telling you Power Apps cannot have a shared data core is wrong.
The difference is who does that work and when. Dataverse is a capability you take up: somebody models the entities, decides the security roles, chooses the environments, sets the DLP policies and keeps all of it consistent while makers build. Microsoft gives you good tools for that and a great many choices. In a large estate with a platform team, that is an advantage rather than a burden.
Cordango has made those choices already. Organizations and people are platform records rather than entities you model, roles and history come from underneath, and there is no environment strategy because there are no environments. That is worth less to you the more platform capability you already have, which is the fair way to read this page.
Power Apps is the better choice when the organisation is already deeply standardised on Microsoft, when there is a platform team to run Power Platform properly, or when the connector ecosystem is doing real work for you.
What we can show you, and what we cannot. Cordango holds no ISO 27001, SOC 2 or C5 certification today, and has not commissioned an external penetration test yet. We would rather you read that here than find it in procurement. Security and permissions at Cordango, and the data processing agreement in full.
Bring a process you would otherwise model in Power Platform. We will build it in the demo and you can see which decisions never come up, because the company foundation was already settled.