Transparency alternatives to Cenosco
Other Maintenance management (CMMS) vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Cenosco. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 60 that differ from Cenosco on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Cenosco has 9 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, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Cenosco” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Cenosco | Found at Cenosco, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiixfiixsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fiix | 35/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| UpKeepupkeep.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpKeep | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ServiceChannelservicechannel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ServiceChannel | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| MaintainXgetmaintainx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MaintainX | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Accruentaccruent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Accruent | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Infraspeakinfraspeak.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infraspeak | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Limblelimble.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Limble | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ASB taskTrackerasbtasktracker.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ASB taskTracker | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Ultimoultimo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ultimo | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Azzierazzier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Azzier | 14/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Asset Infinityassetinfinity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Asset Infinity | 24/100 | 1 Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| eMaintemaint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eMaint | 22/100 | 1 Data location stated | 2 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.