Transparency alternatives to Behavox
Other eDiscovery and archiving vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Behavox. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Behavox on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Behavox has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Behavox” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Behavox | Found at Behavox, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DISCOcsdisco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DISCO | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Mailbutlermailbutler.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailbutler | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Hanzohanzo.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Hanzo | 39/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Smarshsmarsh.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smarsh | 39/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Jatheonjatheon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jatheon | 45/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Magnet Forensicsmagnetforensics.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Magnet Forensics | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| GoldFynchgoldfynch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoldFynch | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Lighthouselighthouseglobal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lighthouse | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Everlaweverlaw.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Everlaw | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Logikculllogikcull.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Logikcull | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ComplyKEYcomplykey.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ComplyKEY | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Nuixnuix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nuix | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.