Transparency alternatives to Icedrive
Other Cloud storage vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Icedrive. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 21 that differ from Icedrive on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Icedrive has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, 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 Icedrive” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Icedrive | Found at Icedrive, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dropboxdropbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dropbox | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Egnyteegnyte.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Egnyte | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Proton Driveproton.meSee also Transparency alternatives to Proton Drive | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Sync.comsync.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sync.com | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Tresorittresorit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tresorit | 22/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Megamega.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mega | 36/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ownCloudowncloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ownCloud | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Jottacloudjottacloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jottacloud | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Filenfilen.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Filen | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | Compare |
| Koofrkoofr.euSee also Transparency alternatives to Koofr | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| RushFilesrushfiles.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RushFiles | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Backblazebackblaze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Backblaze | 22/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Public pricing, 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.