Transparency alternatives to Sendbird
Other Conversational AI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Sendbird. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 41 that differ from Sendbird on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Sendbird has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at Sendbird” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Sendbird | Found at Sendbird, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MessageBirdbird.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MessageBird | 87/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history | nothing | Compare |
| Forethoughtforethought.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Forethought | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Botpressbotpress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Botpress | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Netominetomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Netomi | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Sinchsinch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sinch | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Yellow.aiyellow.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Yellow.ai | 55/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Rasarasa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rasa | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Tiledesktiledesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tiledesk | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Infobipinfobip.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infobip | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Moveworksmoveworks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Moveworks | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | Compare |
| Kore.aikore.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Kore.ai | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Wotnotwotnot.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Wotnot | 48/100 | 1 Data location stated | 2 Subprocessor list, 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.