Transparency alternatives to MaintainX
Other Maintenance management (CMMS) vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at MaintainX. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 60 that differ from MaintainX on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
MaintainX has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at MaintainX” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at MaintainX | Found at MaintainX, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiixfiixsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fiix | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ServiceChannelservicechannel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ServiceChannel | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Cenoscocenosco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cenosco | 22/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Mendrhubmendrhub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mendrhub | 22/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Ultimoultimo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ultimo | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| CFAWincfasoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CFAWin | 17/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Fracttalfracttal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fracttal | 17/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| GEOMAGIC GeoNAMgeomagic.deSee also Transparency alternatives to GEOMAGIC GeoNAM | 17/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| MicroWest AMMSmicrowestsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MicroWest AMMS | 17/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| UpKeepupkeep.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpKeep | 35/100 | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Accruentaccruent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Accruent | 30/100 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Infraspeakinfraspeak.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infraspeak | 30/100 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Public pricing | 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.