Transparency alternatives to Ziflow
Other Creative review and approval vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ziflow. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Ziflow on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ziflow has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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 Ziflow” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ziflow | Found at Ziflow, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balsamiqbalsamiq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Balsamiq | 91/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Marker.iomarker.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Marker.io | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Sketchsketch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sketch | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Pastelusepastel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pastel | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Atarimatarim.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Atarim | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Userbackuserback.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Userback | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Bugherdbugherd.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bugherd | 48/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Axureaxure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Axure | 39/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Penpotpenpot.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Penpot | 30/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Wireframe.ccwireframe.ccSee also Transparency alternatives to Wireframe.cc | 30/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Ruttlruttl.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ruttl | 26/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Relumerelume.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Relume | 22/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 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.