SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Acquia DAM

Other Digital asset management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Acquia DAM. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 36 that differ from Acquia DAM on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Acquia DAM has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Acquia DAM” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at Acquia DAMFound at Acquia DAM, not found there
Cloudinarycloudinary.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudinary 64/100 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Frontifyfrontify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontify 52/100 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Filecampfilecamp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Filecamp 36/100 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Imgiximgix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Imgix 43/100 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Massetgetmasset.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Masset 43/100 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Brandfolderbrandfolder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Brandfolder 39/100 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Sitecore Content Hubsitecore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sitecore Content Hub 35/100 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Bynderbynder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bynder 30/100 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact 1 Status page with history Compare
Uploadcareuploadcare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Uploadcare 30/100 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Airair.incSee also Transparency alternatives to Air 27/100 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure 1 Status page with history Compare
Pic-Timepic-time.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pic-Time 26/100 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Aprimoaprimo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aprimo 30/100 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, 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.