Transparency alternatives to Onspring
Other Compliance automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Onspring. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 58 that differ from Onspring on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Onspring has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Onspring” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Onspring | Found at Onspring, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keelkeelgrc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keel | 78/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Secureframesecureframe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Secureframe | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Whisticwhistic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whistic | 57/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Vantavanta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vanta | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| LogicGatelogicgate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LogicGate | 55/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Hyperproofhyperproof.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperproof | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Certacerta.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Certa | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| ProcessUnityprocessunity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ProcessUnity | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Kertoskertos.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Kertos | 30/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Optrooptro.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Optro | 30/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Riskonnectriskonnect.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Riskonnect | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Unified Complianceunifiedcompliance.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Unified Compliance | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, 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.