Transparency alternatives to Gatekeeper
Other Contract management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Gatekeeper. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Gatekeeper on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Gatekeeper has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, 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 Gatekeeper” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Gatekeeper | Found at Gatekeeper, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ironcladironcladapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ironclad | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| ContractSafecontractsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ContractSafe | 70/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| Congaconga.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Conga | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Weagreeweagree.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Weagree | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| LinkSquareslinksquares.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LinkSquares | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Outlawgetoutlaw.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Outlaw | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Spotdraftspotdraft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Spotdraft | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Agiloftagiloft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agiloft | 22/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Contractbookcontractbook.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contractbook | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Zefortzefort.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zefort | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Jurojuro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Juro | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Summizesummize.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Summize | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, 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.