SaaS Ranking

Alternatives to Fabasoft

Other Document management vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Fabasoft does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 30 that differ from Fabasoft on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Fabasoft has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “publishes and Fabasoft does not” is the one that closes them.

VendorScorePublishes, and Fabasoft does notFabasoft publishes, and they do not
Templafytemplafy.com 74/100 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Onehubonehub.com 57/100 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Laserfichelaserfiche.com 52/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named nothing Compare
Ademeroademero.com 48/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
DynaFiledynafile.com 43/100 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Revverrevverdocs.com 13/100 2 Public pricing, Certifications named 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 Compare
OpenTextopentext.com 20/100 1 Status page with history 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact Compare
Dokmeedokmee.com 17/100 1 Public pricing 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
M-Filesm-files.com 17/100 1 Public pricing 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Thereforetherefore.net 17/100 1 No third-party tracking before consent 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Ecodmsecodms.de 9/100 1 No third-party tracking before consent 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 Compare
Infolinxinfolinx.com 9/100 1 No third-party tracking before consent 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +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.