Transparency alternatives to Tenovos
Other Digital asset management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Tenovos. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from Tenovos on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Tenovos has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Tenovos” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Tenovos | Found at Tenovos, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloudinarycloudinary.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudinary | 64/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Frontifyfrontify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontify | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Imgiximgix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Imgix | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Massetgetmasset.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Masset | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Bynderbynder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bynder | 39/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Uploadcareuploadcare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Uploadcare | 30/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Brandfolderbrandfolder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Brandfolder | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| ResourceSpaceresourcespace.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ResourceSpace | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 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 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Aprimoaprimo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aprimo | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Censharecenshare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Censhare | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Scaleflexscaleflex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scaleflex | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 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.