Transparency alternatives to Enchant
Other Helpdesk vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Enchant. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 50 that differ from Enchant on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Enchant has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Enchant” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Enchant | Found at Enchant, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercomintercom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intercom | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +4 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Dixadixa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dixa | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| BoldDeskbolddesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldDesk | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Desk365desk365.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Desk365 | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Kustomerkustomer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kustomer | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Deskprodeskpro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deskpro | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Frontfront.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Front | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Gorgiasgorgias.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gorgias | 50/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Re:amazereamaze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Re:amaze | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Hiverhiverhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hiver | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Crispcrisp.chatSee also Transparency alternatives to Crisp | 43/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Helpwisehelpwise.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Helpwise | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 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.