Transparency alternatives to Atmail
Other Email hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Atmail does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 37 that differ from Atmail on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Atmail has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “publishes and Atmail does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Atmail does not | Atmail publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tutatuta.com | 48/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Migadumigadu.com | 30/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| StartMailstartmail.com | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Stalwartstalw.art | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Fastmailfastmail.com | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Gandigandi.net | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| df.eudf.eu | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Runboxrunbox.com | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Grommuniogrommunio.com | 22/100 | 3 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Yandex 360yandex.com | 22/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Purelymailpurelymail.com | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| All-Inklall-inkl.com | 22/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | 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.