Transparency alternatives to Cust
Other Customer success and onboarding vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Cust. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from Cust on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Cust has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Cust” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Cust | Found at Cust, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dockdock.usSee also Transparency alternatives to Dock | 87/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Totangototango.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Totango | 74/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Gainsightgainsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gainsight | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Reprisereprise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reprise | 48/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Chameleontrychameleon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Chameleon | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Whatfixwhatfix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whatfix | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Rocketlanerocketlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rocketlane | 68/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | Compare |
| Navatticnavattic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Navattic | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ClientSuccessclientsuccess.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ClientSuccess | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pendopendo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pendo | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Demostackdemostack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Demostack | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| UserGuidinguserguiding.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UserGuiding | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +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.