Transparency alternatives to Campaign Monitor
Other Email marketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Campaign Monitor. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Campaign Monitor on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Campaign Monitor has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Campaign Monitor” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Campaign Monitor | Found at Campaign Monitor, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mailgunmailgun.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailgun | 83/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +4 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ActiveCampaignactivecampaign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ActiveCampaign | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| EmailOctopusemailoctopus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EmailOctopus | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Customer.iocustomer.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Customer.io | 78/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Buttondownbuttondown.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Buttondown | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Klaviyoklaviyo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Klaviyo | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Mailchimpmailchimp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailchimp | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Omnisendomnisend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Omnisend | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Postmarkpostmarkapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Postmark | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CleverReachcleverreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverReach | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Emailableemailable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Emailable | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Kitkit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kit | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.