Transparency alternatives to The Drive AI
Other Document management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at The Drive AI. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 65 that differ from The Drive AI on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
The Drive AI has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at The Drive AI” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at The Drive AI | Found at The Drive AI, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Templafytemplafy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Templafy | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CloudFilescloudfiles.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudFiles | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Intralinksintralinks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intralinks | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Smallpdfsmallpdf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smallpdf | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Onehubonehub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onehub | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Laserfichelaserfiche.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Laserfiche | 52/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| DynaFiledynafile.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DynaFile | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| VisualVaultvisualvault.comSee also Transparency alternatives to VisualVault | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Ademeroademero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ademero | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Papermarkpapermark.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Papermark | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| PaperOfficepaperoffice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PaperOffice | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Documenterodocumentero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Documentero | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, 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.