Transparency alternatives to Omnisend
Other Email marketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Omnisend. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Omnisend on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Omnisend has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at Omnisend” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Omnisend | Found at Omnisend, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mailgunmailgun.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailgun | 83/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Customer.iocustomer.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Customer.io | 78/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ActiveCampaignactivecampaign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ActiveCampaign | 74/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| EmailOctopusemailoctopus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EmailOctopus | 70/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Klaviyoklaviyo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Klaviyo | 65/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Mailchimpmailchimp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailchimp | 57/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| CleverReachcleverreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverReach | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Kitkit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kit | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 4 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Brevobrevo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Brevo | 36/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Buttondownbuttondown.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Buttondown | 61/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Elastic Emailelasticemail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Elastic Email | 43/100 | 1 Data location stated | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| MailBlustermailbluster.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MailBluster | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 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.