Transparency alternatives to Archdesk
Other Construction management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Archdesk. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 63 that differ from Archdesk on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Archdesk has 10 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, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Archdesk” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Archdesk | Found at Archdesk, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daluxdalux.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dalux | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| CompanyCamcompanycam.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CompanyCam | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Bridgitgobridgit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bridgit | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Nexvianexvia.com.auSee also Transparency alternatives to Nexvia | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Bluebeambluebeam.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bluebeam | 30/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Hero Softwarehero-software.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Hero Software | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Procoreprocore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Procore | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Newformanewforma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Newforma | 26/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SmartPMsmartpmtech.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SmartPM | 26/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Assignarassignar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Assignar | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SkillSignalskillsignal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SkillSignal | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Boxcoreboxcore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boxcore | 26/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.