Transparency alternatives to Shorthand
Other Content management systems vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Shorthand. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Shorthand on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Shorthand has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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 Shorthand” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Shorthand | Found at Shorthand, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanitysanity.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sanity | 78/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Storyblokstoryblok.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Storyblok | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Contentstackcontentstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contentstack | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Directusdirectus.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Directus | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Craft CMScraftcms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Craft CMS | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Uniformuniform.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Uniform | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Pantheonpantheon.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pantheon | 52/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Tinatina.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Tina | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Umbracoumbraco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Umbraco | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Write.aswrite.asSee also Transparency alternatives to Write.as | 22/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Statamicstatamic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Statamic | 13/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Strapistrapi.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Strapi | 39/100 | 1 Public pricing | 1 Status page with history | 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.