Transparency alternatives to First Advantage
Other Background screening vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at First Advantage. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from First Advantage on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
First Advantage has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at First Advantage” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at First Advantage | Found at First Advantage, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xrefxref.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xref | 70/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Turnturn.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Turn | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Zinczincwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zinc | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| GoodHiregoodhire.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoodHire | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Trueworktruework.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Truework | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Certncertn.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Certn | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Asurintasurint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Asurint | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| SpringVerifyspringverify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SpringVerify | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Checkrcheckr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Checkr | 26/100 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Crimcheckcrimcheck.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Crimcheck | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Veremarkveremark.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Veremark | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ScoutLogicscoutlogicscreening.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScoutLogic | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.