SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Smallpdf

Other Document management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Smallpdf. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 65 that differ from Smallpdf on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Smallpdf has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at Smallpdf” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at SmallpdfFound at Smallpdf, not found there
Templafytemplafy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Templafy 74/100 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
CloudFilescloudfiles.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudFiles 70/100 2 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Intralinksintralinks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intralinks 70/100 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Laserfichelaserfiche.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Laserfiche 52/100 2 Status page with history, Public pricing 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Onehubonehub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onehub 52/100 2 Status page with history, Public pricing 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Ademeroademero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ademero 43/100 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent 4 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 Compare
SmartVaultsmartvault.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SmartVault 26/100 2 Status page with history, Public pricing 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 Compare
DynaFiledynafile.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DynaFile 43/100 1 Status page with history 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Papermarkpapermark.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Papermark 43/100 1 Public pricing 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
PaperOfficepaperoffice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PaperOffice 39/100 1 Public pricing 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Folderitfolderit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Folderit 30/100 1 Public pricing 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 Compare
Kenestokenesto.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kenesto 26/100 1 Public pricing 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 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.