Transparency alternatives to Hiver
Other Helpdesk vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Hiver. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 50 that differ from Hiver on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Hiver has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Hiver” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Hiver | Found at Hiver, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldDeskbolddesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldDesk | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Intercomintercom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intercom | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Desk365desk365.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Desk365 | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Deskprodeskpro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deskpro | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Dixadixa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dixa | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Gorgiasgorgias.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gorgias | 50/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Frontfront.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Front | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Kustomerkustomer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kustomer | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Crispcrisp.chatSee also Transparency alternatives to Crisp | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Re:amazereamaze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Re:amaze | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Deskudesku.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Desku | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Dragdragapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Drag | 43/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 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.