Transparency alternatives to Laserfiche
Other Document management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Laserfiche. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 65 that differ from Laserfiche on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Laserfiche has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Laserfiche” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Laserfiche | Found at Laserfiche, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Templafytemplafy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Templafy | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| CloudFilescloudfiles.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudFiles | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Intralinksintralinks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intralinks | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Onehubonehub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onehub | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Smallpdfsmallpdf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smallpdf | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| DynaFiledynafile.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DynaFile | 43/100 | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Papermarkpapermark.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Papermark | 43/100 | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Ademeroademero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ademero | 39/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Documenterodocumentero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Documentero | 22/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Thereforetherefore.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Therefore | 22/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Bitfarmbitfarm-archiv.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Bitfarm | 17/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Ecodmsecodms.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Ecodms | 9/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 7 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +4 | 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.