Transparency alternatives to Onlook
Other Design and prototyping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Onlook. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from Onlook on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Onlook has 11 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, 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 Onlook” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Onlook | Found at Onlook, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recraftrecraft.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Recraft | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Photoroomphotoroom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Photoroom | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Splinespline.designSee also Transparency alternatives to Spline | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Pencilpencil.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Pencil | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| PicMonkeypicmonkey.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PicMonkey | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | nothing | Compare |
| UXPinuxpin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXPin | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| Animaanimaapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anima | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Pixelcutpixelcut.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pixelcut | 32/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| Erasereraser.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Eraser | 30/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| Supernovasupernova.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Supernova | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| Visilyvisily.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Visily | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| Infograminfogram.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infogram | 22/100 | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | nothing | 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.