Transparency alternatives to Bitfarm
Other Document management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Bitfarm. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 65 that differ from Bitfarm on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Bitfarm has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Bitfarm” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Bitfarm | Found at Bitfarm, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Templafytemplafy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Templafy | 74/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| CloudFilescloudfiles.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudFiles | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Intralinksintralinks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intralinks | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Smallpdfsmallpdf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smallpdf | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Laserfichelaserfiche.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Laserfiche | 52/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Onehubonehub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onehub | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| DynaFiledynafile.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DynaFile | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Papermarkpapermark.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Papermark | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Ademeroademero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ademero | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| PaperOfficepaperoffice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PaperOffice | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Fabasoftfabasoft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fabasoft | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Folderitfolderit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Folderit | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.