Transparency alternatives to Crisp
Other Helpdesk vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Crisp. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 50 that differ from Crisp on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Crisp has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Crisp” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Crisp | Found at Crisp, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercomintercom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intercom | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| BoldDeskbolddesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldDesk | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Gorgiasgorgias.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gorgias | 50/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Desk365desk365.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Desk365 | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Deskprodeskpro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deskpro | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dixadixa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dixa | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Frontfront.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Front | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Kustomerkustomer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kustomer | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Hiverhiverhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hiver | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Tidiotidio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tidio | 41/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Kayakokayako.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kayako | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Deskudesku.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Desku | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +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.