Transparency alternatives to Zinc
Other Background screening vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Zinc. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Zinc on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Zinc has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Zinc” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Zinc | Found at Zinc, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xrefxref.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xref | 70/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| GoodHiregoodhire.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoodHire | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Trueworktruework.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Truework | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Certncertn.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Certn | 43/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Veremarkveremark.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Veremark | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Turnturn.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Turn | 61/100 | 1 Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| Asurintasurint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Asurint | 30/100 | 1 Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Checkrcheckr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Checkr | 26/100 | 1 Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Verified Firstverifiedfirst.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Verified First | 22/100 | 1 Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Yardstikyardstik.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Yardstik | 22/100 | 1 Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Cisivecisive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cisive | 17/100 | 1 Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| IDfyidfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IDfy | 17/100 | 1 Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 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.