Transparency alternatives to PicMonkey
Other Design and prototyping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at PicMonkey. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from PicMonkey on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
PicMonkey has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at PicMonkey” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at PicMonkey | Found at PicMonkey, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recraftrecraft.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Recraft | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Photoroomphotoroom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Photoroom | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Splinespline.designSee also Transparency alternatives to Spline | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Animaanimaapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anima | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Knapsackknapsack.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Knapsack | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ZeroLightzerolight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZeroLight | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Pencilpencil.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Pencil | 43/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| UXPinuxpin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXPin | 35/100 | 1 Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Erasereraser.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Eraser | 30/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Infograminfogram.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infogram | 22/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Specifyspecifyapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Specify | 22/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Kittlkittl.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kittl | 13/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.