Transparency alternatives to Mailfence
Other Email hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Mailfence. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from Mailfence on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Mailfence has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Mailfence” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Mailfence | Found at Mailfence, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tutatuta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tuta | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| StartMailstartmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to StartMail | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Stalwartstalw.artSee also Transparency alternatives to Stalwart | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Gandigandi.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Gandi | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Migadumigadu.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Migadu | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| df.eudf.euSee also Transparency alternatives to df.eu | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Yandex 360yandex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Yandex 360 | 22/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Fastmailfastmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fastmail | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Hushmailhushmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hushmail | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Runboxrunbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Runbox | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Grommuniogrommunio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Grommunio | 22/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Skiffskiff.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skiff | 22/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 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.