Transparency alternatives to CompanyCam
Other Construction management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at CompanyCam. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 64 that differ from CompanyCam on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
CompanyCam has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at CompanyCam” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at CompanyCam | Found at CompanyCam, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daluxdalux.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dalux | 52/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Newformanewforma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Newforma | 26/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Nexvianexvia.com.auSee also Transparency alternatives to Nexvia | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Bluebeambluebeam.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bluebeam | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Aproplanaproplan.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aproplan | 17/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Bridgitgobridgit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bridgit | 39/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CUBE CDEcube.msSee also Transparency alternatives to CUBE CDE | 35/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Procoreprocore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Procore | 30/100 | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Boxcoreboxcore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boxcore | 26/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Hero Softwarehero-software.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Hero Software | 26/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| O3 Solutionso3.solutionsSee also Transparency alternatives to O3 Solutions | 26/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| RIB Softwarerib-software.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RIB Software | 26/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 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.