Transparency alternatives to Ruttl
Other Creative review and approval vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ruttl. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 41 that differ from Ruttl on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ruttl has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Ruttl” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ruttl | Found at Ruttl, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balsamiqbalsamiq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Balsamiq | 91/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Marker.iomarker.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Marker.io | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Sketchsketch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sketch | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Userbackuserback.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Userback | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Atarimatarim.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Atarim | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Marvelmarvelapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Marvel | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Ziflowziflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ziflow | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Pastelusepastel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pastel | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Bugherdbugherd.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bugherd | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Approval Studioapproval.studioSee also Transparency alternatives to Approval Studio | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Axureaxure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Axure | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Frame.ioframe.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Frame.io | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 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.