IT Pro Tutorials 
If Microsoft 365 is the benchmark for document depth, Google Workspace is the benchmark for collaboration itself. Google Docs more or less invented the experience everyone now expects, several people editing the same document at once, live, in a browser, with no version files emailed around. This article looks at Workspace purely through that lens, the Docs, Sheets, and Slides collaboration story and the Drive underneath it, and leaves Gmail out of the picture, because email is a separate question from the suite.
Seen that way, Google Workspace is the other incumbent the sovereign alternatives are chasing, and the one whose core strength is hardest to replicate. It also shares Microsoft’s fundamental sovereignty problem, because the passport is the same. Here is the honest picture of both.
Short verdict:
- Google Workspace sets the bar for real-time document collaboration; Docs, Sheets, and Slides remain the smoothest multi-user editing experience around.
- Its strength is collaboration and simplicity rather than the document depth of Microsoft’s suite.
- It carries the same sovereignty cost as any US provider: Cloud Act exposure that Sovereign Controls reduce but do not remove.
The collaboration benchmark
Google’s contribution to the office world was not a better word processor, it was a better way of working together in one. Docs, Sheets, and Slides were built browser-first and collaboration-first, and that origin still shows. Live cursors, instant simultaneous editing, inline comments, suggestion mode, and automatic version history came together here first and remain exceptionally well executed.
The result is that for genuinely collaborative work, drafting together, commenting, reviewing, iterating, Workspace often feels lighter and more immediate than the alternatives. There is no real distinction between an online and an offline version to think about, because online is the product. For teams whose work is fundamentally about people editing the same documents together rather than producing complex standalone files, that simplicity is a real advantage and the thing competitors find hardest to match.
This is the experience the open-source suites have spent years catching up to, and the reason real-time collaboration is now the first feature anyone checks.
Strength through simplicity, not depth
It is worth being honest about where Workspace sits relative to Microsoft, because they are strong in different places. Where Microsoft 365 wins on depth, the long tail of advanced Excel and intricate formatting, Google Workspace wins on immediacy and low friction.
Sheets is a very capable spreadsheet, but it is not trying to be Excel for the most demanding power users; it is trying to be the spreadsheet a team can open and edit together without thinking. Docs is a clean, fast collaborative editor rather than a typesetting powerhouse. That is a deliberate trade, and for a large share of organizations it is the right one, because most documents are not intricate and most spreadsheets are not financial models. The friction Google removes is felt every day; the depth it lacks is missed only occasionally.
Drive ties it together with straightforward sharing and storage. The whole thing is designed to get out of the way, and for collaboration-centric teams that design philosophy is exactly the appeal.
Market position
Google Workspace is the clear number two in the productivity-suite market, behind Microsoft 365 but a substantial and growing presence, with analyst estimates putting it around a quarter of the market and gaining relative ground. Source: Google Workspace market analysis.
That position matters for the same reason Microsoft’s does. Workspace is widely enough used that interoperating with it is a practical requirement, and its collaborative model has shaped what users expect everywhere. But it is also worth noting that Workspace’s lock-in is softer than Microsoft’s in one respect: its documents live in a simpler, more web-native format, which can make exit somewhat less painful, even if the proprietary Docs format still creates export friction. The gravity is real but lighter.
The sovereignty problem
Now the part that puts Google in the same boat as Microsoft. Google is a US-headquartered company, and that means the same fundamental exposure: under the US Cloud Act, data can be subject to demands regardless of where it is stored. Choosing an EU region does not change the company’s home jurisdiction.
Google’s answer is Sovereign Controls for Google Workspace, which add client-side encryption with customer-held keys, optionally stored in-country with local partners, plus data-region controls. Source: Sovereign Controls for Google Workspace. Client-side encryption is genuinely meaningful, because if you hold the keys, the data is far less useful to anyone who compels the provider. It is arguably a stronger technical answer than residency controls alone.
But the honest caveat remains. These controls reduce the practical risk substantially when configured well, yet they do not change the underlying jurisdictional fact that Google is a US provider. For organizations that need to answer the extraterritorial-access question with a clean structural “no” rather than “yes, but encrypted,” a US suite still cannot fully provide it. As with Microsoft, residency and encryption controls narrow the gap without closing it.
Admin, security, and the enterprise reality
Collaboration is Workspace’s headline, but the reason it holds enterprise accounts is the administration around it. The admin console is mature, with centralised policy, device management through endpoint controls, data-loss prevention, and detailed audit logging, plus the security backing of Google’s own infrastructure. For an IT team, that operational depth is a real part of the value, and it is an area where the lighter open-source suites still have ground to make up.
It also complicates the sovereignty picture in an honest way. Google’s security and admin tooling is genuinely strong, which means a sovereignty-driven migration is not trading away a sloppy incumbent for a tidy alternative; it is giving up a polished, well-run platform for one whose jurisdiction you prefer. That trade can absolutely be worth it, but it is a trade, and pretending the incumbent is weak does the decision a disservice.
The other enterprise reality is identity gravity. Many organizations use Google not just for documents but as an identity provider, with single sign-on into dozens of third-party applications. Unpicking that is often harder than moving the documents themselves, much as with Microsoft’s fabric. So while Workspace’s document lock-in is genuinely lighter thanks to its web-native formats, the surrounding identity and admin entanglement can be just as sticky. Factor that in when you weigh a move, because the spreadsheet is rarely the thing that keeps a team on Google.
Who should stay, and who should look
Google Workspace is the right choice when collaboration and simplicity are your priority and sovereignty is not a hard requirement. If your team’s work is fundamentally about editing documents together, you value low friction over spreadsheet depth, and you have no mandate pushing you off US providers, Workspace is excellent and probably the most pleasant of the major suites to actually collaborate in.
You should look at alternatives when sovereignty is a genuine constraint. For a public body or a regulated organization, the Cloud Act exposure is the issue even with Sovereign Controls in place, and the European and open-source options in this series exist to provide the structural answer. Encouragingly, the collaboration gap Google opened has largely been closed by the open-source suites, so moving for sovereignty no longer means giving up real-time editing the way it once did, as our La Suite numérique review and our look at Infomaniak kSuite both show.
Final verdict
Google Workspace is the collaboration benchmark, and that is not faint praise. Docs, Sheets, and Slides still deliver the smoothest multi-user editing experience in the market, and for teams whose work is collaborative by nature, the simplicity and immediacy are a genuine, daily advantage that the depth-focused competition does not match. As the thing the sovereign alternatives most need to replicate, it sets a high bar on exactly the axis that matters most for modern teamwork.
And it shares Microsoft’s fundamental catch. The strength comes from a US provider, and Sovereign Controls, strong as client-side encryption is, soften rather than remove the jurisdictional exposure. If sovereignty is not your constraint, Workspace is a superb collaboration suite and a fine choice. If it is, the good news is that the alternatives have finally caught up on collaboration, so you can pursue sovereignty without surrendering the experience Google made standard. See our hub on sovereign office suites for the full picture.
