Transparency alternatives to LXT
Other Data labelling vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at LXT. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 37 that differ from LXT on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
LXT has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at LXT” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at LXT | Found at LXT, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale AIscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scale AI | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| SuperAnnotatesuperannotate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SuperAnnotate | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Hivethehive.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Hive | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| HumanSignalhumansignal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HumanSignal | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| V7v7labs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to V7 | 43/100 | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Snorkelsnorkel.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Snorkel | 13/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Datasaurdatasaur.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Datasaur | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| CVATcvat.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CVAT | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Kilikili-technology.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kili | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Appenappen.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Appen | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Kognickognic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kognic | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Tolokatoloka.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Toloka | 22/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | 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.