Transparency alternatives to Anima
Other Design and prototyping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Anima. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from Anima on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Anima has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Anima” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Anima | Found at Anima, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recraftrecraft.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Recraft | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Photoroomphotoroom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Photoroom | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pencilpencil.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Pencil | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Splinespline.designSee also Transparency alternatives to Spline | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| PicMonkeypicmonkey.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PicMonkey | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| UXPinuxpin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXPin | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Knapsackknapsack.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Knapsack | 17/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ZeroLightzerolight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZeroLight | 17/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pixelcutpixelcut.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pixelcut | 32/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Erasereraser.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Eraser | 30/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Supernovasupernova.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Supernova | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Visilyvisily.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Visily | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.