Transparency alternatives to Photoroom
Other Design and prototyping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Photoroom. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from Photoroom on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Photoroom has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Photoroom” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Photoroom | Found at Photoroom, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recraftrecraft.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Recraft | 61/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Pencilpencil.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Pencil | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Splinespline.designSee also Transparency alternatives to Spline | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| PicMonkeypicmonkey.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PicMonkey | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Animaanimaapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anima | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| UXPinuxpin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXPin | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Pixelcutpixelcut.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pixelcut | 32/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Erasereraser.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Eraser | 30/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Supernovasupernova.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Supernova | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Visilyvisily.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Visily | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Kittlkittl.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kittl | 13/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Infograminfogram.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infogram | 22/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.