Transparency alternatives to Koofr
Other Cloud storage vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Koofr. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 22 that differ from Koofr on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Koofr has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Koofr” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Koofr | Found at Koofr, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDriveidrive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IDrive | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, 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 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Dropboxdropbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dropbox | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Egnyteegnyte.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Egnyte | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Sync.comsync.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sync.com | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Jottacloudjottacloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jottacloud | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Tresorittresorit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tresorit | 22/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ownCloudowncloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ownCloud | 35/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| RushFilesrushfiles.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RushFiles | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Backblazebackblaze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Backblaze | 22/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Livedrivelivedrive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Livedrive | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Wasabiwasabi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Wasabi | 22/100 | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 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.