Transparency alternatives to QWF Instandhaltungssoftware (Quality Workflow)
Other Maintenance management (CMMS) vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at QWF Instandhaltungssoftware (Quality Workflow). This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 48 that differ from QWF Instandhaltungssoftware (Quality Workflow) on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
QWF Instandhaltungssoftware (Quality Workflow) has 12 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, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at QWF Instandhaltungssoftware (Quality Workflow)” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at QWF Instandhaltungssoftware (Quality Workflow) | Found at QWF Instandhaltungssoftware (Quality Workflow), not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiixfiixsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fiix | 35/100 | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| UpKeepupkeep.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpKeep | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Infraspeakinfraspeak.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infraspeak | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Limblelimble.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Limble | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| MaintainXgetmaintainx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MaintainX | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Accruentaccruent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Accruent | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | Compare |
| ServiceChannelservicechannel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ServiceChannel | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | Compare |
| Asset Infinityassetinfinity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Asset Infinity | 22/100 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Cenoscocenosco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cenosco | 22/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Ultimoultimo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ultimo | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | Compare |
| GEOMAGIC GeoNAMgeomagic.deSee also Transparency alternatives to GEOMAGIC GeoNAM | 17/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| eMaintemaint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eMaint | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | 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.