Transparency alternatives to Postmark
Other Email marketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Postmark. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Postmark on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Postmark has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Postmark” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Postmark | Found at Postmark, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mailgunmailgun.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailgun | 83/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Customer.iocustomer.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Customer.io | 78/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ActiveCampaignactivecampaign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ActiveCampaign | 74/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| CleverReachcleverreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverReach | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Klaviyoklaviyo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Klaviyo | 65/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Mailchimpmailchimp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailchimp | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| EmailOctopusemailoctopus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EmailOctopus | 70/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | nothing | Compare |
| Buttondownbuttondown.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Buttondown | 61/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Omnisendomnisend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Omnisend | 57/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Kitkit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kit | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Elastic Emailelasticemail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Elastic Email | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Brevobrevo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Brevo | 36/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, 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.