Transparency alternatives to UserVoice
Other Helpdesk vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at UserVoice. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 50 that differ from UserVoice on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
UserVoice 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, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at UserVoice” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at UserVoice | Found at UserVoice, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldDeskbolddesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldDesk | 78/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Intercomintercom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intercom | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Deskprodeskpro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deskpro | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Desk365desk365.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Desk365 | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Dixadixa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dixa | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Gorgiasgorgias.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gorgias | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Frontfront.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Front | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Kustomerkustomer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kustomer | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Crispcrisp.chatSee also Transparency alternatives to Crisp | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Dragdragapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Drag | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Re:amazereamaze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Re:amaze | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Supportbenchsupportbench.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Supportbench | 41/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 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.