Transparency alternatives to Uploadcare
Other Digital asset management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Uploadcare. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from Uploadcare on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Uploadcare has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Uploadcare” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Uploadcare | Found at Uploadcare, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frontifyfrontify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontify | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cloudinarycloudinary.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudinary | 64/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Brandfolderbrandfolder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Brandfolder | 39/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 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 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Imgiximgix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Imgix | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Massetgetmasset.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Masset | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Bynderbynder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bynder | 39/100 | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Airair.incSee also Transparency alternatives to Air | 36/100 | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ResourceSpaceresourcespace.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ResourceSpace | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Aprimoaprimo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aprimo | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Censharecenshare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Censhare | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Pimcorepimcore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pimcore | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 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.