Transparency alternatives to SER Group
Other Document management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at SER Group. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 64 that differ from SER Group on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
SER Group has 9 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, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at SER Group” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at SER Group | Found at SER Group, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Templafytemplafy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Templafy | 74/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| CloudFilescloudfiles.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudFiles | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Intralinksintralinks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intralinks | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Onehubonehub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onehub | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Smallpdfsmallpdf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smallpdf | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Laserfichelaserfiche.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Laserfiche | 52/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| DynaFiledynafile.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DynaFile | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Folderitfolderit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Folderit | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Papermarkpapermark.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Papermark | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Ademeroademero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ademero | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| PaperOfficepaperoffice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PaperOffice | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| SmartVaultsmartvault.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SmartVault | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.