Google vs Microsoft vs Apple: Who Handles Your Data Best?
Between them, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, and Apple control the operating systems, browsers, email platforms, cloud infrastructure, and devices used by billions of people. The data they collect, store, and monetize is staggering in scale.
But these three companies handle that data very differently. Their business models create fundamentally different incentives. Google earns the vast majority of its revenue from advertising, which depends on user data. Apple sells hardware and positions privacy as a product feature. Microsoft sits somewhere in between, with enterprise software, cloud services, and a growing advertising business.
We scored all three across 11 independent ethical dimensions using court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. No corporate self-assessments. No sustainability questionnaires. Just independently sourced, cited evidence processed through our scoring methodology.
The results reveal that data privacy is only one part of the picture. The company that scores highest on privacy does not score highest overall.
The Full Scorecard
| Dimension | Google (GOOGL) | Microsoft (MSFT) | Apple (AAPL) | Best Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better Health for All | +10 | +30 | +30 | MSFT / AAPL |
| Fair Money & Economic Opportunity | 0 | -10 | 0 | GOOGL / AAPL |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | -10 | -10 | -30 | GOOGL / MSFT |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -10 | -10 | -10 | Tied |
| Honest & Fair Business | -40 | -10 | -20 | MSFT |
| Kind to Animals | 0 | -10 | 0 | GOOGL / AAPL |
| No War, No Weapons | 0 | -60 | 0 | GOOGL / AAPL |
| Planet-Friendly Business | +40 | +20 | +40 | GOOGL / AAPL |
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | +25 | +50 | +25 | MSFT |
| Safe & Smart Tech | -30 | +10 | +20 | AAPL |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | +40 | +70 | +50 | MSFT |
| Average Score | +2.3 | +5.5 | +9.5 | AAPL |
Apple leads with an average of +9.5. Microsoft follows at +5.5. Google trails at +2.3.
But averages obscure the real story. Each company has significant strengths and significant weaknesses. The gaps between them are revealing.
The Data Privacy Question: Safe & Smart Tech
This is the dimension most readers will care about first. On Safe & Smart Tech -- which measures data breach severity, AI ethics governance, cybersecurity investment, privacy compliance, and user data control -- the three companies diverge sharply.
Apple: +20
Apple scores the highest of the three on data privacy and technology safety. According to our analysis, Apple has positioned privacy as a core product feature and competitive differentiator. Its App Tracking Transparency framework, on-device processing approach, and end-to-end encryption across its services ecosystem contribute to a positive assessment. Apple's track record on major data breaches is notably cleaner than its peers, based on available regulatory records.
A score of +20 is positive but not exceptional. It reflects genuine privacy-oriented product design, tempered by the reality that Apple still operates a growing advertising business and has faced scrutiny over its own data collection practices in certain jurisdictions.
Microsoft: +10
Microsoft scores mildly positive. Our data indicates Microsoft has invested substantially in enterprise-grade cybersecurity and AI ethics governance, including its Responsible AI framework and dedicated ethics review boards. Its enterprise products generally receive strong marks on security certifications and compliance.
However, the score is limited by documented concerns around data collection in Windows, Bing, and LinkedIn, as well as questions raised in regulatory proceedings about the scope of data processed through its cloud and productivity platforms.
Google: -30
Google scores -30, the lowest of the three by a substantial margin. This reflects the fundamental tension at the core of Alphabet's business model: an advertising company that generates the majority of its revenue from user data is structurally incentivized to collect as much data as possible.
According to our analysis, Google has faced multiple significant regulatory actions related to data handling. GDPR fines, antitrust investigations citing data market power, and documented concerns about the scope of location tracking and cross-service data integration all contribute to this negative score. The scale and depth of Google's data collection across Search, Gmail, Android, Chrome, Maps, YouTube, and dozens of other products is without parallel among the three companies.
A score of -30 does not mean Google lacks security infrastructure. It means that independent evidence -- from regulatory actions and investigative reports -- identifies more concerns than positive signals on privacy and data ethics.
Explore what Safe & Smart Tech measures ->
Corporate Governance: The Trust Gap
Honest & Fair Business measures corporate integrity, disclosure quality, regulatory compliance, and anti-corruption performance. This is where Google shows its weakest score.
Google: -40. Alphabet's governance score is the lowest of the three, driven by ongoing antitrust proceedings across multiple jurisdictions. The U.S. Department of Justice antitrust case, European Commission competition fines, and regulatory investigations into advertising market practices all weigh on this score. According to our data, the scale and recurrence of regulatory actions against Google on competition and market dominance grounds are significant.
Apple: -20. Apple's governance score is also negative, reflecting documented concerns about App Store policies, developer fee structures, and antitrust investigations in multiple markets. While less severe than Google's regulatory record, the pattern of proceedings raises questions about market fairness.
Microsoft: -10. Microsoft scores the least negatively here. While the company has its own antitrust history -- most famously the browser wars of the late 1990s and early 2000s -- its more recent regulatory record is comparatively cleaner. The company's enterprise-focused strategy has generated fewer competition concerns than its consumer-facing peers.
The Microsoft Defence Problem
The single most striking number in the entire scorecard is Microsoft's -60 on No War, No Weapons.
Both Google and Apple score 0 on this dimension -- meaning our analysis found insufficient independent evidence to score them positively or negatively. Microsoft is a different story entirely.
According to our data, Microsoft maintains significant defence contract relationships documented in public procurement records. The company provides cloud computing, AI, and augmented reality technology to military organisations across multiple countries. The scale of these contracts, as documented in publicly available procurement records, drives the -60 score.
For investors who screen on defence involvement, this is a disqualifying number. Microsoft's overall average of +5.5 is dragged down substantially by this single dimension. Without the -60, its average would be approximately +11.5 -- close to Apple's overall score.
This illustrates why Mashinii scores across 11 independent dimensions rather than producing a single blended rating. A company can score well on nearly everything and still carry a significant risk factor that matters deeply to certain investors.
Sustainability: Where All Three Perform Well
Environmental metrics are the one area where all three companies score positively. This is notable because it is not the norm across the technology sector.
Zero Waste & Sustainable Products
Microsoft: +70. The highest score in the entire comparison, and one of the highest sustainability scores in our tech coverage. According to our analysis, Microsoft's waste reduction programmes, circular economy initiatives, and sustainable product design practices are backed by substantial independently verifiable evidence.
Apple: +50. Apple's product recycling programmes, including its Daisy disassembly robot and material recovery initiatives, contribute to a strong sustainability score. Its commitment to recycled materials in product manufacturing is documented in public reports and third-party assessments.
Google: +40. Google scores positively through its data centre efficiency programmes and waste reduction initiatives. While lower than its peers, +40 is a solid positive score.
Planet-Friendly Business
Google: +40. Google has invested heavily in renewable energy for its data centres and has maintained carbon neutrality claims, though the growing energy demands of AI infrastructure introduce new challenges.
Apple: +40. Apple's environmental commitments, including its target for a carbon-neutral supply chain, are reflected in this score. The company's operational emissions reductions are documented in independent assessments.
Microsoft: +20. Microsoft's environmental score is positive but lower than the other two. Its massive $10.5 billion renewables purchase signals serious commitment, but the sheer scale of its cloud and AI infrastructure means its environmental footprint remains substantial.
Labour Practices: None of Them Shine
On Fair Pay & Worker Respect, none of the three companies scores well.
Google: -10. Mildly negative, reflecting documented concerns about contractor working conditions, pay equity disputes, and internal labour organizing conflicts reported in public records.
Microsoft: -10. Similarly mildly negative. Concerns documented in public records relate to contractor practices and subsidiary labour conditions.
Apple: -30. Apple's notably lower score is driven primarily by supply chain labour findings. Independent investigations and public reports documenting working conditions at Apple supplier factories -- including long hours, safety incidents, and labour rights concerns -- contribute to this negative score. While Apple audits its supply chain and publishes supplier reports, the findings from independent investigations carry significant weight in our methodology.
For a company that leads the overall ranking, a -30 on worker respect is a significant blemish. It demonstrates the value of 11-dimensional scoring: Apple's environmental strength does not cancel out its supply chain labour concerns.
Community Relations: Microsoft's Standout
On Respect for Cultures & Communities, Microsoft scores a notable +50 -- the highest single positive score for any company in this comparison outside of sustainability metrics.
According to our data, Microsoft's community investment programmes, accessibility initiatives, and documented engagement with underserved communities contribute to this score. Its philanthropic commitments and educational programmes are backed by independently verifiable evidence.
Google and Apple both score +25 -- positive but significantly lower than Microsoft. Both companies have community programmes, but the scale and documented impact in independent records is less extensive.
The Bottom Line
| Company | Average | Best Dimension | Worst Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apple (AAPL) | +9.5 | Zero Waste (+50), Planet (+40) | Fair Pay & Worker Respect (-30) |
| Microsoft (MSFT) | +5.5 | Zero Waste (+70), Community (+50) | No War, No Weapons (-60) |
| Google (GOOGL) | +2.3 | Planet (+40), Zero Waste (+40) | Honest & Fair Business (-40) |
Apple leads overall because it scores positively or neutrally across more dimensions than its peers. Its weakness is concentrated in supply chain labour practices. An investor who cares most about worker rights might view Apple's ranking differently.
Microsoft has the highest individual scores in the comparison (+70 on sustainability, +50 on community) but is pulled down dramatically by its defence sector involvement. An investor who screens on weapons would rank Microsoft last despite its strengths elsewhere.
Google trails because of its data privacy score and governance concerns. Its advertising-driven business model creates structural tension with privacy-first principles. An investor focused on data ethics would rank Google last, which aligns with the overall ranking.
No single ranking is correct for every investor. The right choice depends on which dimensions matter most to you.
How We Score Companies
Mashinii scores companies across 11 ethical dimensions using independently sourced data -- court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. Scores range from -100 to +100. A score of 0 means insufficient independent evidence to assess. Every score is backed by cited sources.
We do not use corporate self-assessments or ESG questionnaires. Learn more about our methodology ->
Check Your Tech Holdings
If you own shares in any of these companies -- directly or through index funds -- their ethical profile is part of your portfolio. The average index fund holds all three.
You can see exactly how your holdings score across all 11 dimensions in under 60 seconds.
Search any of these companies directly: