Transparency alternatives to ScreenCloud
Other Digital signage vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at ScreenCloud. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 54 that differ from ScreenCloud on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
ScreenCloud has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at ScreenCloud” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at ScreenCloud | Found at ScreenCloud, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yodeckyodeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Yodeck | 65/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Play Digital Signageplaysignage.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Play Digital Signage | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Pickcelpickcel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pickcel | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Poppulopoppulo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Poppulo | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Xiboxibo.org.ukSee also Transparency alternatives to Xibo | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Carouselcarouselsignage.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Carousel | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Navorinavori.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Navori | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| NoviSignnovisign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NoviSign | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| PosterBookingposterbooking.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PosterBooking | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Disedise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dise | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| viewneoviewneo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to viewneo | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Appspaceappspace.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Appspace | 52/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | 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.