Sharegate Migrate can move a full Teams tenant, chat history, channels, files, and permissions from one Microsoft 365 environment to another in a few clicks. What it cannot tell you is whether the people using Teams noticed anything happened at all.
That is the question most evaluations of Teams migration tools never ask. If you are comparing Sharegate against another migration solution for a merger, divestiture, tenant consolidation, or platform modernization at enterprise scale, across multiple sites or regions, the criteria below cover what the market already tells you to check, and the one thing it does not.
The short answer, before you evaluate anything else.
Sharegate Migrate is built for Microsoft 365 tenant-to-tenant moves, the scenario that comes up most often during mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, and tenant consolidation. For Teams specifically, it migrates entire teams between tenants in a few clicks, carrying over chat history, channels, membership, files, tabs, apps, and Planner plans so users land in a working environment on day one.
In 2026, Sharegate added Entra ID migration, so identity, mailbox, and workload migration across Exchange Online, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams can now run as a single sequence rather than three separate projects. That consolidation is worth knowing if you are comparing Sharegate against a tool that only handles one workload, or against Microsoft's own native tenant-to-tenant tooling, which still requires more manual sequencing.
Sharegate is not the only option in this category, and this piece is not a scored comparison of it against another vendor. The six criteria below apply to whichever tool you are evaluating.
Conflating them is where evaluations go wrong.
Data migration success asks whether every file, channel, chat history entry, and permission arrived at the destination tenant intact.
UC continuity asks whether every user could still make a clear call, join a meeting, and collaborate without disruption while that data was in motion.
Every major evaluation criterion for Teams migration tools, Sharegate included, is built to answer the first question. None of them are built to answer the second, because that is not what a migration tool does. It moves data. It does not watch call quality, session performance, or UC infrastructure health while the move is happening, and most teams do not discover that gap until they are already mid-cutover.
| What a migration tool checks | What it doesn't check |
|---|---|
| Did the data arrive? | Did the calls stay clear? |
| Are permissions and licenses mapped correctly? | Did session and meeting quality hold up during cutover? |
| Was the sync complete and reconciled? | Did users notice any degradation at all? |
“A migration tool tells you the data arrived. It doesn't tell you whether anyone noticed it move.”
A criteria-based checklist, not a vendor scorecard.
The first five criteria live in the migration tool's own documentation, and Sharegate, like most established vendors in this category, covers them well. The sixth does not appear in that documentation at all, because it is not a migration capability. It is a monitoring one, and it needs a separate answer.
The technical reason the blind spot exists.
A tenant-to-tenant cutover changes more than where your files live. Clients re-authenticate against a new tenant, media paths and call routing can shift for direct-routing and PSTN connectivity, DNS changes propagate at different speeds across users and locations, and licenses reassign in batches rather than all at once. Each of those can degrade call quality or drop sessions for a subset of users during the cutover window, and a migration tool has no visibility into any of it, because that is not what it measures.
In practice, that shows up as jitter, packet loss, or one-way audio on calls that were routing normally the week before, concentrated in the specific window when a batch of users, sites, or SBCs cut over. The pattern is easy to miss from inside a migration project plan, because nothing in that plan is designed to look for it.
That is how an IT team ends up watching every file transfer succeed, the migration dashboard shows green, and still gets a wave of Teams call quality complaints the same week, with nothing in the migration report to explain why. For organizations running Teams as their primary voice platform, an unmonitored cutover turns a planned, well-executed data migration into an unplanned service incident, right when leadership is watching the project closest and least willing to hear “we're not sure.”
Monitoring the environment your migration tool can't see.
IR Collaborate is built to answer the question a migration tool was never designed to answer: is the Teams environment actually performing, right now, for the people using it. It gives real-time performance insights, complete UCC visibility, and customizable dashboards across your Teams environment, with rapid end-to-end troubleshooting and proactive alerting when something degrades before, during, and after a tenant-to-tenant cutover, so a problem surfaces as an alert during the cutover window rather than as a support ticket the following Monday.
That visibility is independent of which migration tool moves the data. Whether you choose Sharegate or another solution, IR Collaborate covers the part of the migration that the vendor's evaluation criteria was never built to measure: whether your users' calls, meetings, and channels kept working the whole time, not just whether they arrived intact.
For organizations running a multi-vendor UC environment, Teams alongside Cisco, Avaya, or other platforms, that same visibility carries through the migration and stays in place afterward, rather than switching off once the data transfer completes.
If you are past the evaluation stage and planning execution, IR's Microsoft Teams migration checklist walks through the step-by-step process, and our guide to reviewing a Teams migration project covers the tenant-to-tenant specifics in more depth.
Choosing between Sharegate and another migration tool answers one question: who moves your data, and how cleanly. It does not answer the question your users will actually ask during cutover: did anything break while it moved. Evaluate the migration tool on data fidelity. Evaluate your visibility into the UC environment separately, and have it in place before cutover starts, not after the first support ticket lands in the help desk queue.
See what real-time visibility into your Teams environment looks like during a migration.