Transparency alternatives to UserGuiding
Other Customer success and onboarding vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at UserGuiding. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from UserGuiding on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
UserGuiding has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, 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 UserGuiding” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at UserGuiding | Found at UserGuiding, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dockdock.usSee also Transparency alternatives to Dock | 87/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Totangototango.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Totango | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Rocketlanerocketlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rocketlane | 68/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Gainsightgainsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gainsight | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Arcadearcade.softwareSee also Transparency alternatives to Arcade | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Inline Manualinlinemanual.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Inline Manual | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Custcust.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Cust | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Navatticnavattic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Navattic | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Walnutwalnut.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Walnut | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Arrowsarrows.toSee also Transparency alternatives to Arrows | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ClientSuccessclientsuccess.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ClientSuccess | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| GUIDEcxguidecx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GUIDEcx | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.