SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Proton Drive

Other Cloud storage vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Proton Drive. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 22 that differ from Proton Drive on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Proton Drive has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Proton Drive” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at Proton DriveFound at Proton Drive, not found there
IDriveidrive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IDrive 61/100 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Dropboxdropbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dropbox 48/100 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Tresorittresorit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tresorit 43/100 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Egnyteegnyte.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Egnyte 52/100 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Sync.comsync.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sync.com 43/100 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Wasabiwasabi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Wasabi 43/100 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Filenfilen.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Filen 39/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 Compare
Megamega.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mega 36/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Koofrkoofr.euSee also Transparency alternatives to Koofr 35/100 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 Compare
ownCloudowncloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ownCloud 35/100 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
RushFilesrushfiles.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RushFiles 26/100 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Backblazebackblaze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Backblaze 22/100 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 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.