SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Outlaw

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

12 shown of 30 that differ from Outlaw on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Outlaw has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, 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 Outlaw” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at OutlawFound at Outlaw, not found there
ContractSafecontractsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ContractSafe 70/100 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 1 Named privacy contact Compare
Ironcladironcladapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ironclad 52/100 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change 1 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 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact Compare
Congaconga.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Conga 35/100 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history 2 Data location stated, Certifications named Compare
Contractbookcontractbook.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contractbook 35/100 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact Compare
Zefortzefort.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zefort 30/100 2 Status page with history, Public pricing 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact Compare
DocJurisdocjuris.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DocJuris 26/100 2 Status page with history, Public pricing 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact Compare
fynkfynk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to fynk 22/100 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact Compare
Weagreeweagree.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Weagree 35/100 1 Data processing agreement 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Bindbindlegal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bind 22/100 1 Public pricing 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact Compare
Contractifycontractify.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Contractify 22/100 1 Subprocessor list 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact Compare
Avokaadoavokaado.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Avokaado 17/100 1 Status page with history 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, 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.