Transparency alternatives to Conga
Other Contract management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Conga. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Conga on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Conga has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, 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 Conga” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Conga | Found at Conga, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ContractSafecontractsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ContractSafe | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Ironcladironcladapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ironclad | 52/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Gatekeepergatekeeperhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gatekeeper | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Weagreeweagree.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Weagree | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Contractbookcontractbook.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contractbook | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| LinkSquareslinksquares.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LinkSquares | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Outlawgetoutlaw.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Outlaw | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Spotdraftspotdraft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Spotdraft | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Zefortzefort.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zefort | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Agiloftagiloft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agiloft | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Bindbindlegal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bind | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| fynkfynk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to fynk | 22/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, 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.