Transparency alternatives to Onlim
Other Conversational AI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Onlim. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 41 that differ from Onlim on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Onlim has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Onlim” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Onlim | Found at Onlim, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MessageBirdbird.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MessageBird | 87/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Sinchsinch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sinch | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Yellow.aiyellow.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Yellow.ai | 55/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Forethoughtforethought.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Forethought | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Botpressbotpress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Botpress | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Sendbirdsendbird.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sendbird | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Infobipinfobip.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infobip | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Netominetomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Netomi | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Rasarasa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rasa | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tiledesktiledesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tiledesk | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Wotnotwotnot.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Wotnot | 48/100 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Landbotlandbot.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Landbot | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.