Transparency alternatives to ClientSuccess
Other Customer success and onboarding vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at ClientSuccess. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from ClientSuccess on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
ClientSuccess has 6 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, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at ClientSuccess” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at ClientSuccess | Found at ClientSuccess, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dockdock.usSee also Transparency alternatives to Dock | 87/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Totangototango.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Totango | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Inline Manualinlinemanual.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Inline Manual | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Rocketlanerocketlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rocketlane | 68/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Gainsightgainsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gainsight | 61/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Chameleontrychameleon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Chameleon | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Reprisereprise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reprise | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Custifycustify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Custify | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| GUIDEcxguidecx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GUIDEcx | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Pendopendo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pendo | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Walnutwalnut.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Walnut | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Whatfixwhatfix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whatfix | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.