Transparency alternatives to Papermark
Other Document management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Papermark. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 65 that differ from Papermark on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Papermark has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Papermark” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Papermark | Found at Papermark, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CloudFilescloudfiles.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudFiles | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Templafytemplafy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Templafy | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Intralinksintralinks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intralinks | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Smallpdfsmallpdf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smallpdf | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Laserfichelaserfiche.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Laserfiche | 52/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Onehubonehub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onehub | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Ademeroademero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ademero | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Fabasoftfabasoft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fabasoft | 35/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| SmartVaultsmartvault.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SmartVault | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| VisualVaultvisualvault.comSee also Transparency alternatives to VisualVault | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Thereforetherefore.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Therefore | 22/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Doxisdoxis.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Doxis | 17/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +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.