Transparency alternatives to Accela
Other Software for local government vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Accela. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 62 that differ from Accela on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Accela has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Accela” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Accela | Found at Accela, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ProudCityproudcity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ProudCity | 26/100 | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Submittablesubmittable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Submittable | 52/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | Compare |
| Fluxxfluxx.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Fluxx | 43/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Rekorrekor.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Rekor | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| OpenGovopengov.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenGov | 30/100 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| ARMSarms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ARMS | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Foundantfoundant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foundant | 39/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Axonaxon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Axon | 35/100 | 1 Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Euna Solutionseunasolutions.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Euna Solutions | 17/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Granicusgranicus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Granicus | 17/100 | 1 Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Kahuakahua.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kahua | 17/100 | 1 Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Mark43mark43.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mark43 | 17/100 | 1 Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 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.