Transparency alternatives to Diabolocom
Other Contact centre vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Diabolocom. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Diabolocom on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Diabolocom has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, 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 Diabolocom” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Diabolocom | Found at Diabolocom, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aircallaircall.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Aircall | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| CloudTalkcloudtalk.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudTalk | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| CallHippocallhippo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CallHippo | 59/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| 2Chat2chat.coSee also Transparency alternatives to 2Chat | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| RingCentralringcentral.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RingCentral | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| NICEnice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NICE | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Enreachenreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Enreach | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| CallNcalln.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CallN | 22/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Puzzelpuzzel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Puzzel | 47/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Call Handling VCCcallhandling.co.ukSee also Transparency alternatives to Call Handling VCC | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| JustCalljustcall.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to JustCall | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| CallMinercallminer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CallMiner | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 Status page with history, 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.