Transparency alternatives to Opus L
Other Laboratory information systems vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Opus L. 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 Opus L on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Opus L has 10 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, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Opus L” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Opus L | Found at Opus L, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nethealth Labnethealth.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nethealth Lab | 52/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| LIMSeylimsey.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LIMSey | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Benchlingbenchling.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Benchling | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| IGORigorlabapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IGOR | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Rspaceresearchspace.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rspace | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Scispotscispot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scispot | 35/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Genemodgenemod.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Genemod | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Quartzyquartzy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Quartzy | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Dotmaticsdotmatics.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dotmatics | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Magic Touchmagictouchsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Magic Touch | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| SciSurescisure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SciSure | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Dornerdorner.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Dorner | 22/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 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.