Transparency alternatives to Ironclad
Other Contract management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ironclad. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Ironclad on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ironclad has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Ironclad” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ironclad | Found at Ironclad, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ContractSafecontractsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ContractSafe | 70/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Gatekeepergatekeeperhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gatekeeper | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Congaconga.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Conga | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Zefortzefort.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zefort | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| DocJurisdocjuris.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DocJuris | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| fynkfynk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to fynk | 22/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Avokaadoavokaado.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Avokaado | 17/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Ntractsntracts.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ntracts | 17/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Summizesummize.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Summize | 17/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Contractbookcontractbook.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contractbook | 35/100 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Weagreeweagree.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Weagree | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| LinkSquareslinksquares.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LinkSquares | 30/100 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Subprocessor list, 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.