Transparency alternatives to Pic-Time
Other Digital asset management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Pic-Time. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from Pic-Time on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pic-Time has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Pic-Time” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Pic-Time | Found at Pic-Time, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloudinarycloudinary.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudinary | 64/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Frontifyfrontify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontify | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Brandfolderbrandfolder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Brandfolder | 39/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Imgiximgix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Imgix | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Massetgetmasset.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Masset | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Sitecore Content Hubsitecore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sitecore Content Hub | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Aprimoaprimo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aprimo | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Bynderbynder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bynder | 30/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Scaleflexscaleflex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scaleflex | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Uploadcareuploadcare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Uploadcare | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Airair.incSee also Transparency alternatives to Air | 27/100 | 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Acquia DAMacquia.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Acquia DAM | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, 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.