Transparency alternatives to Purelymail
Other Email hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Purelymail. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 37 that differ from Purelymail on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Purelymail has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, 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 Purelymail” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Purelymail | Found at Purelymail, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gandigandi.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Gandi | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Tutatuta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tuta | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| StartMailstartmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to StartMail | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Stalwartstalw.artSee also Transparency alternatives to Stalwart | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| df.eudf.euSee also Transparency alternatives to df.eu | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, 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 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Migadumigadu.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Migadu | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Titantitan.emailSee also Transparency alternatives to Titan | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Open-Xchangeox.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Open-Xchange | 17/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Stratostrato.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Strato | 17/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Manitumanitu.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Manitu | 9/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Fastmailfastmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fastmail | 30/100 | 1 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.