Table: list of collaborative software
[['name', 'public', 'intranet', 'extranet', 'personal sites', 'team sites', 'developer'], ['ibm connections', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes'], ['ibm lotus domino', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'no', 'yes', 'yes'], ['ibm lotus quickplace', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes'], ['microsoft exchange server', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'no', 'no', 'no'], ['microsoft office live communications server', 'no', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'no'], ['microsoft sharepoint', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes', 'yes'], ['microsoft team foundation server', 'no', 'yes', 'yes', 'no', 'yes', 'yes'], ['name', 'public', 'intranet', 'extranet', 'personal sites', 'team sites', 'developer']]
Statement: the only category that both Microsoft and Ibm have a no in is the Personal Site category
Statement: none of the Collaborative Software listed have a no in the Intranet and Extranet category
Statement: Microsoft is the only company with Software that has no listed in some of the entry for the Public category
Statement: Ibm has the distinction of having all of their Collaborative Software having Developer support
Statement: the Microsoft Software has substantially less support and Public facing website Ibm Software when comparing aggregate no and Yes entry for both company