Transparency alternatives to Yandex 360
Other Email hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Yandex 360. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 37 that differ from Yandex 360 on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Yandex 360 has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Yandex 360” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Yandex 360 | Found at Yandex 360, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tutatuta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tuta | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| StartMailstartmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to StartMail | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Fastmailfastmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fastmail | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Gandigandi.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Gandi | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Hushmailhushmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hushmail | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Migadumigadu.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Migadu | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Purelymailpurelymail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Purelymail | 26/100 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Runboxrunbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Runbox | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Stalwartstalw.artSee also Transparency alternatives to Stalwart | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| df.eudf.euSee also Transparency alternatives to df.eu | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| All-Inklall-inkl.comSee also Transparency alternatives to All-Inkl | 22/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Atmailatmail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atmail | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), 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.