Transparency alternatives to Userflow
Other Customer success and onboarding vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Userflow. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from Userflow on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Userflow has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Userflow” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Userflow | Found at Userflow, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dockdock.usSee also Transparency alternatives to Dock | 87/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Totangototango.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Totango | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Gainsightgainsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gainsight | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| GUIDEcxguidecx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GUIDEcx | 43/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Rocketlanerocketlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rocketlane | 68/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Arcadearcade.softwareSee also Transparency alternatives to Arcade | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Inline Manualinlinemanual.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Inline Manual | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Navatticnavattic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Navattic | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| ClientSuccessclientsuccess.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ClientSuccess | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Custcust.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Cust | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Planhatplanhat.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Planhat | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Demostackdemostack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Demostack | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 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.