SaaS Ranking
Menu

BuildingReports: what they publish

buildingreports.com · Field service management · checked 2026-09-29

Not enough data: 2 of 12 criteria measured, so no transparency score

Our snapshot contains measured results for 2 of 12 criteria for BuildingReports. Latest check: 2026-09-29. We found 1 with a source and did not find 1 at the addresses we checked; 10 we could not measure at all. Below our threshold there is no score and no rank, and that is a statement about our measurement.

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

BuildingReports

1 found · 1 not found · 10 not measured across 12 public checks.

2 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-09-29.

Investigate 11 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Subprocessor list

    Which subprocessors apply to our product, what does each process, and in which countries? Please share the current list.

    Inspect this check
  3. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  4. Status page with history

    Where can we review incident history for the service we will use, and how do we subscribe to incident updates?

    Inspect this check
  5. Public pricing

    Please confirm the total cost for our seats and usage, including minimum commitments, add-ons, overages and renewal terms.

    Inspect this check
  6. Certifications named

    Please share the current certificate or audit report and its scope, covered legal entity, products and validity period.

    Inspect this check
  7. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  8. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  9. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check
  10. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check
  11. Named privacy contact

    Which privacy contact handles requests for our account, and what escalation path should we use?

    Inspect this check
Jump to a criterion 12

Overview

3 days since the newest dated result, 3 since the oldest. 2 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

BuildingReports

buildingreports.com · Field service management

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
Not enough data2 of 12 measured, no score

Published commitments9 not measured

Measured behaviour1 of 2 found, 1 not measured

Checked 2026-09-29. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

The evidence pack carries every criterion with its source, the addresses we checked, the date and the data snapshot id – the four things a procurement file needs and a screenshot loses. We do not issue badges: a badge is the first step towards a paid placement, and there is none here.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. We could measure 2 of 12 criteria, which is below our threshold, so there is no rank. That is a statement about our measurement, not about BuildingReports.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that BuildingReports has no such document.

What BuildingReports states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-09-29.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/ – third-party requests before any interaction: ad.doubleclick.net, embed-ssl.wistia.com, fonts.googleapis.com, fonts.gstatic.com, p.typekit.net, region1.analytics.google.com, stats.g.doubleclick.net, use.fontawesome.com, use.typekit.net, www.google.com, www.google.de, www.googletagmanager.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Field service management: 2 of 61 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 1
✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

Source: https://buildingreports.com/ · checked 2026-09-29

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Field service management: 25 of 60 companies

Not measured by us 10
–

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/legal/dpa – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/dpa – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/data-processing-agreement – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/legal/data-processing-addendum – excluded by robots.txt
  6. https://buildingreports.com/legal/gdpr – excluded by robots.txt
  7. https://buildingreports.com/trust/dpa – excluded by robots.txt
  8. https://buildingreports.com/privacy/dpa – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Field service management: 3 of 59 companies

–

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/legal/subprocessors – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/subprocessors – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com/sub-processors – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/legal/sub-processors – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/trust/subprocessors – excluded by robots.txt
  6. https://buildingreports.com/privacy/subprocessors – excluded by robots.txt
  7. https://buildingreports.com/legal/subprocessor-list – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Field service management: 2 of 59 companies

–

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/security – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/trust – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com/legal/privacy – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/privacy – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/privacy-policy – excluded by robots.txt
  6. https://buildingreports.com/compliance – excluded by robots.txt
  7. https://buildingreports.com/legal/privacy-policy – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Field service management: 7 of 60 companies

–

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 3 addresses we checked
  1. https://status.buildingreports.com/ – The name "status.buildingreports.com" could not be resolved.
  2. https://buildingreports.com/status – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com.statuspage.io/ – Could not be fetched: fetch failed.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Status page with history in Field service management: 16 of 57 companies

–

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 5 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/pricing – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/pricing/ – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://buildingreports.com/plans – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/en/pricing – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/pricing-plans – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Public pricing in Field service management: 32 of 58 companies

–

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/legal/subprocessors – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/subprocessors – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com/sub-processors – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/legal/dpa – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/dpa – excluded by robots.txt
  6. https://buildingreports.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – excluded by robots.txt
  7. https://buildingreports.com/trust/subprocessors – excluded by robots.txt
  8. https://buildingreports.com/legal/sub-processors – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Field service management: 2 of 57 companies

–

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/security – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/trust – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com/trust-center – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/compliance – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/legal/security – excluded by robots.txt
  6. https://trust.buildingreports.com/ – The name "trust.buildingreports.com" could not be resolved.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Certifications named in Field service management: 8 of 58 companies

–

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/legal/sla – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/sla – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com/legal/service-level-agreement – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/trust/sla – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/uptime – excluded by robots.txt
  6. https://buildingreports.com/legal/uptime-sla – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Field service management: 2 of 57 companies

–

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/.well-known/security.txt – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Field service management: 6 of 54 companies

–

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s robots.txt excludes us from at least one of these addresses, so this was not measured.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://buildingreports.com/legal/privacy – excluded by robots.txt
  2. https://buildingreports.com/privacy – excluded by robots.txt
  3. https://buildingreports.com/privacy-policy – excluded by robots.txt
  4. https://buildingreports.com/legal/privacy-policy – excluded by robots.txt
  5. https://buildingreports.com/legal/privacy-notice – excluded by robots.txt
  6. https://buildingreports.com/trust/privacy – excluded by robots.txt
  7. https://buildingreports.com/datenschutz – excluded by robots.txt

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Field service management: 19 of 58 companies

History

Not enough completed runs yet to draw a line. The next runs fill this in.

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.