Transparency alternatives to Dorner
Other Laboratory information systems vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Dorner. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
Need a functional replacement? Run a synthetic sample trial before comparing product fit. This disclosure table cannot establish which modules or workflows another product can replace. Follow the sample workflow checklist.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Dorner on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Dorner has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Dorner” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Dorner | Found at Dorner, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nethealth Labnethealth.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nethealth Lab | 52/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| LIMSeylimsey.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LIMSey | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Benchlingbenchling.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Benchling | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| IGORigorlabapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IGOR | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Rspaceresearchspace.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rspace | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Scispotscispot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scispot | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Quartzyquartzy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Quartzy | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Genemodgenemod.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Genemod | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Magic Touchmagictouchsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Magic Touch | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dotmaticsdotmatics.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dotmatics | 26/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SciSurescisure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SciSure | 26/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Lab Threadlabthread.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lab Thread | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, 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.