Transparency alternatives to Theta Lake
Other eDiscovery and archiving vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Theta Lake. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Theta Lake on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Theta Lake 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, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Theta Lake” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Theta Lake | Found at Theta Lake, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DISCOcsdisco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DISCO | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Mailbutlermailbutler.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailbutler | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Hanzohanzo.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Hanzo | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Smarshsmarsh.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smarsh | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Jatheonjatheon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jatheon | 45/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | nothing | Compare |
| Magnet Forensicsmagnetforensics.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Magnet Forensics | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | nothing | Compare |
| Digital WarRoomdigitalwarroom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Digital WarRoom | 38/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| CloudNinecloudnine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudNine | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| GoldFynchgoldfynch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoldFynch | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Lighthouselighthouseglobal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lighthouse | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Shieldshieldfc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Shield | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Everlaweverlaw.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Everlaw | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | 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.