Transparency alternatives to IDfy
Other Background screening vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at IDfy. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 31 that differ from IDfy on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
IDfy has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at IDfy” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at IDfy | Found at IDfy, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xrefxref.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xref | 70/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Turnturn.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Turn | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Zinczincwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zinc | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Certncertn.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Certn | 43/100 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| GoodHiregoodhire.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoodHire | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Trueworktruework.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Truework | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| SpringVerifyspringverify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SpringVerify | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Checkrcheckr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Checkr | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Crimcheckcrimcheck.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Crimcheck | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| ScoutLogicscoutlogicscreening.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScoutLogic | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Verified Firstverifiedfirst.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Verified First | 22/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| First Advantagefadv.comSee also Transparency alternatives to First Advantage | 9/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.