SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to TYPO3

Other Content management systems vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at TYPO3. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 38 that differ from TYPO3 on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

TYPO3 has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at TYPO3” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at TYPO3Found at TYPO3, not found there
Sanitysanity.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sanity 78/100 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 nothing Compare
Storyblokstoryblok.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Storyblok 74/100 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Contentstackcontentstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contentstack 57/100 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Directusdirectus.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Directus 52/100 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Pantheonpantheon.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pantheon 52/100 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Uniformuniform.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Uniform 43/100 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
CloudCannoncloudcannon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudCannon 35/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
ButterCMSbuttercms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ButterCMS 30/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Craft CMScraftcms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Craft CMS 48/100 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing 1 Named privacy contact Compare
Shorthandshorthand.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Shorthand 39/100 2 Status page with history, Certifications named 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Strapistrapi.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Strapi 39/100 2 Public pricing, Certifications named 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Prismicprismic.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Prismic 35/100 2 Public pricing, Certifications named 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 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.