Transparency alternatives to Infogram
Other Design and prototyping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Infogram. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from Infogram on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Infogram has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, 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 Infogram” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Infogram | Found at Infogram, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recraftrecraft.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Recraft | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Photoroomphotoroom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Photoroom | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Splinespline.designSee also Transparency alternatives to Spline | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Pencilpencil.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Pencil | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| PicMonkeypicmonkey.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PicMonkey | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| UXPinuxpin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXPin | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Animaanimaapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anima | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Pixelcutpixelcut.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pixelcut | 32/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Erasereraser.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Eraser | 30/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Supernovasupernova.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Supernova | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Visilyvisily.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Visily | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Specifyspecifyapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Specify | 22/100 | 1 Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | 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.