Transparency alternatives to United World Telecom
Other Contact centre vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at United World Telecom. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from United World Telecom on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
United World Telecom has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at United World Telecom” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at United World Telecom | Found at United World Telecom, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aircallaircall.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Aircall | 70/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| CloudTalkcloudtalk.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudTalk | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Call Handling VCCcallhandling.co.ukSee also Transparency alternatives to Call Handling VCC | 57/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Talkdesktalkdesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Talkdesk | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| JustCalljustcall.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to JustCall | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Nextivanextiva.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nextiva | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Enreachenreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Enreach | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| CallHippocallhippo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CallHippo | 59/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| NICEnice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NICE | 39/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| CallMinercallminer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CallMiner | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Diabolocomdiabolocom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Diabolocom | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Genesysgenesys.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Genesys | 26/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.