Transparency alternatives to Incode
Other Fraud prevention and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Incode. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Incode on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Incode has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Incode” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Incode | Found at Incode, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socuresocure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Socure | 52/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| PXL Visionpxl-vision.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PXL Vision | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Vouchedvouched.idSee also Transparency alternatives to Vouched | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Feedzaifeedzai.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Feedzai | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Firmcheckfirmcheck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Firmcheck | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| InScope-AMLinscope-aml.comSee also Transparency alternatives to InScope-AML | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ComplyAdvantagecomplyadvantage.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ComplyAdvantage | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Wyllowyllo.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Wyllo | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| IDnowidnow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to IDnow | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Sardinesardine.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Sardine | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Alloyalloy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alloy | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| iDenfyidenfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to iDenfy | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.