Transparency alternatives to UrBackup
Other Backup and recovery vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at UrBackup. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from UrBackup on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
UrBackup has 11 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at UrBackup” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at UrBackup | Found at UrBackup, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicatiduplicati.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Duplicati | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SimpleBackupssimplebackups.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SimpleBackups | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Rewindrewind.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rewind | 48/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Afiafi.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Afi | 39/100 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SpinOnespin.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to SpinOne | 39/100 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Barracudabarracuda.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Barracuda | 47/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| BorgBaseborgbase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BorgBase | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Keepitkeepit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keepit | 35/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Acronisacronis.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Acronis | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| HYCUhycu.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HYCU | 26/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Redstorredstor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Redstor | 32/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Comet Backupcometbackup.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Comet Backup | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.