Transparency alternatives to Abstract
Other Creative review and approval vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Abstract. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 41 that differ from Abstract on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Abstract has 11 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Abstract” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Abstract | Found at Abstract, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balsamiqbalsamiq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Balsamiq | 91/100 | 10 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +7 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Marker.iomarker.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Marker.io | 74/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Sketchsketch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sketch | 74/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Userbackuserback.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Userback | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Atarimatarim.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Atarim | 48/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Marvelmarvelapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Marvel | 48/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Ziflowziflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ziflow | 48/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Bugherdbugherd.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bugherd | 48/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Approval Studioapproval.studioSee also Transparency alternatives to Approval Studio | 39/100 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Frame.ioframe.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Frame.io | 35/100 | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Axureaxure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Axure | 39/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Filestagefilestage.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Filestage | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.