Transparency alternatives to Bella FSM
Other Field service management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Bella FSM. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 56 that differ from Bella FSM on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Bella FSM has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Bella FSM” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Bella FSM | Found at Bella FSM, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ServiceM8servicem8.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ServiceM8 | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Fulcrumfulcrumapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fulcrum | 45/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ServiceTitanservicetitan.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ServiceTitan | 30/100 | 4 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Skeduloskedulo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skedulo | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| FieldEdgefieldedge.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FieldEdge | 36/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Payacapayaca.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Payaca | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ServicePowerservicepower.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ServicePower | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Jobbergetjobber.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jobber | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Housecall Prohousecallpro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Housecall Pro | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Praxedopraxedo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Praxedo | 30/100 | 2 Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Uptickuptickhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Uptick | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Arezarez.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Arez | 26/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.