SaaS transparency ranking · Security and compliance
Email security vendors, ranked by what they publish
Email security and phishing defence, ranked by what they publish about how they handle your data.
12 vendors measured on their own sites, last on 2026-09-02. 10 ranked, 2 without enough data for a score. A vendor we could not measure often enough gets no rank at all, rather than a bad one.
Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Transparency means: published on the vendor's own site, readable without a login, found by us at the addresses we checked.
- Email security24
- All categories26
12 vendors
Sort by Score Name Last checked
Filters (0)
- ✓ found, source linked
- × not found at the addresses we checked
- – not measured by us
- 12 criteria in the order of the methodology, heaviest first within each group.
-
1
Red Siftredsift.comTransparency 83/100 BBand B
- Data processing agreement: found
- Subprocessor list: found
- Data location stated: not measured
- Status page with history: found
- Public pricing: found
- Certifications named: not measured
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not measured
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: found
- Named privacy contact: found
Gap: No third-party tracking before consent and 1 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 83/100 = weight of what we found (15) divided by weight of what we could measure (18). Rank 1 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 7 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Named privacy contact ×1.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 2 criteria: No third-party tracking before consent ×2, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1.
Not measured by us, 3 criteria: Data location stated ×3, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
2
Hoxhunthoxhunt.comTransparency 74/100 BBand B
- Data processing agreement: found
- Subprocessor list: found
- Data location stated: found
- Status page with history: found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): found
- Notice before subprocessors change: found
- Named privacy contact: not found
Gap: Public pricing and 3 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 74/100 = weight of what we found (17) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 2 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 8 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 4 criteria: Public pricing ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
3
Abnormalabnormalsecurity.comTransparency 61/100 CBand C
- Data processing agreement: not found
- Subprocessor list: found
- Data location stated: found
- Status page with history: found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: found
- Named privacy contact: found
Gap: Data processing agreement and 4 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 61/100 = weight of what we found (14) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 3 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 7 criteria: Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 5 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Public pricing ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
4
Cofensecofense.comTransparency 39/100 EBand E
- Data processing agreement: found
- Subprocessor list: not found
- Data location stated: found
- Status page with history: not found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: not found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: not found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: found
- Named privacy contact: found
Gap: Subprocessor list and 7 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 39/100 = weight of what we found (9) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 4 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 4 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Data location stated ×3, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Named privacy contact ×1.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 8 criteria: Subprocessor list ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
5
Hornetsecurityhornetsecurity.comTransparency 26/100 EBand E
- Data processing agreement: not found
- Subprocessor list: not found
- Data location stated: not found
- Status page with history: found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: not found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): found
- Notice before subprocessors change: not found
- Named privacy contact: found
Gap: Data processing agreement and 7 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 26/100 = weight of what we found (6) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 5 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 4 criteria: Status page with history ×2, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 8 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Public pricing ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
6
Guardzguardz.comTransparency 22/100 FBand F
- Data processing agreement: not found
- Subprocessor list: not found
- Data location stated: found
- Status page with history: not found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: not found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: not found
- Named privacy contact: not found
Gap: Data processing agreement and 9 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 22/100 = weight of what we found (5) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 6 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 2 criteria: Data location stated ×3, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 10 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
7
Avananavanan.comTransparency 11/100 FBand F
- Data processing agreement: not measured
- Subprocessor list: not found
- Data location stated: not found
- Status page with history: not found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: not found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: not measured
- Named privacy contact: not found
Gap: Subprocessor list and 8 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 11/100 = weight of what we found (2) divided by weight of what we could measure (18). Rank 7 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 1 criterion: HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 9 criteria: Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Not measured by us, 2 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Notice before subprocessors change ×2.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
8
Armorbloxarmorblox.comTransparency 9/100 FBand F
- Data processing agreement: not found
- Subprocessor list: not found
- Data location stated: not found
- Status page with history: not found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: not found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: not found
- Named privacy contact: not found
Gap: Data processing agreement and 10 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 9/100 = weight of what we found (2) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 8 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 1 criterion: HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 11 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
9
Tessiantessian.comTransparency 9/100 FBand F
- Data processing agreement: not found
- Subprocessor list: not found
- Data location stated: not found
- Status page with history: not found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: not found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: not found
- Named privacy contact: not found
Gap: Data processing agreement and 10 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 9/100 = weight of what we found (2) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 9 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Found with a source, 1 criterion: HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 11 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
10
Check Pointcheckpoint.comTransparency 0/100 FBand F
- Data processing agreement: not found
- Subprocessor list: not found
- Data location stated: not found
- Status page with history: not found
- Public pricing: not found
- Certifications named: not found
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not found
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: not found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not found
- Notice before subprocessors change: not found
- Named privacy contact: not found
Gap: Data processing agreement and 11 moreWhy this rank?
Transparency 0/100 = weight of what we found (0) divided by weight of what we could measure (23). Rank 10 in this category by that score; ties are broken by name.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 12 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
Agariagari.comNot enough data: 2 of 12 criteria measured, so no transparency score
- Data processing agreement: not measured
- Subprocessor list: not measured
- Data location stated: not measured
- Status page with history: not measured
- Public pricing: not measured
- Certifications named: not measured
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not measured
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: not found
- No third-party tracking before consent: not found
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not measured
- Notice before subprocessors change: not measured
- Named privacy contact: not measured
Gap: HTTPS enforced with HSTS and 1 moreWhy this rank?
No score: we could measure 2 of 12 criteria, and below 9 there is no number and no rank. That is a statement about our measurement, not about the vendor.
Not found at the addresses we checked, 2 criteria: HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2.
Not measured by us, 10 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
-
URIportsuriports.comNot enough data: 0 of 12 criteria measured, so no transparency score
- Data processing agreement: not measured
- Subprocessor list: not measured
- Data location stated: not measured
- Status page with history: not measured
- Public pricing: not measured
- Certifications named: not measured
- Uptime SLA with a figure: not measured
- HTTPS enforced with HSTS: not measured
- No third-party tracking before consent: not measured
- security.txt (RFC 9116): not measured
- Notice before subprocessors change: not measured
- Named privacy contact: not measured
We could not measure any of the 12 criteria, so no score or rank was assigned.Why this rank?
No score: we could measure 0 of 12 criteria, and below 9 there is no number and no rank. That is a statement about our measurement, not about the vendor.
Not measured by us, 12 criteria: Data processing agreement ×3, Subprocessor list ×3, Data location stated ×3, Status page with history ×2, Public pricing ×2, HTTPS enforced with HSTS ×2, No third-party tracking before consent ×2, Notice before subprocessors change ×2, Certifications named ×1, Uptime SLA with a figure ×1, security.txt (RFC 9116) ×1, Named privacy contact ×1.
Every source and every checked address is on the vendor page.
Tick two vendors above.
This category, criterion by criterion
How this market does on each criterion, with its own share and how it compares with the rest.
- Data processing agreement
- 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
- security.txt (RFC 9116)
- Notice before subprocessors change
- Named privacy contact
Every result links its source on the vendor page. A dash means we could not measure it, not that it is missing. See how we score.