Transparency alternatives to Zammad
Other Helpdesk vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Zammad. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 50 that differ from Zammad on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Zammad has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Zammad” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Zammad | Found at Zammad, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deskprodeskpro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deskpro | 83/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| BoldDeskbolddesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldDesk | 78/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Desk365desk365.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Desk365 | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Intercomintercom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Intercom | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Gorgiasgorgias.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gorgias | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Dixadixa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dixa | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Kustomerkustomer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kustomer | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Frontfront.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Front | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Hiverhiverhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hiver | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Dragdragapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Drag | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Supportbenchsupportbench.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Supportbench | 41/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Kayakokayako.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kayako | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.