Transparency alternatives to Logikcull
Other eDiscovery and archiving vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Logikcull. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Logikcull on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Logikcull has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Logikcull” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Logikcull | Found at Logikcull, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DISCOcsdisco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DISCO | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Shieldshieldfc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Shield | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Jatheonjatheon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jatheon | 45/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Mailbutlermailbutler.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailbutler | 43/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Hanzohanzo.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Hanzo | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Smarshsmarsh.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smarsh | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| GoldFynchgoldfynch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoldFynch | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Lighthouselighthouseglobal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lighthouse | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Everlaweverlaw.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Everlaw | 30/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Nuixnuix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nuix | 26/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Digital WarRoomdigitalwarroom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Digital WarRoom | 24/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Behavoxbehavox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Behavox | 22/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 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.