SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Anthology

Other Learning management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Anthology. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 42 that differ from Anthology on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Anthology has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS. The column “Found there, not found at Anthology” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at AnthologyFound at Anthology, not found there
Skilljarskilljar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skilljar 70/100 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 3 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Codiocodio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Codio 57/100 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 4 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 Compare
LearnWorldslearnworlds.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LearnWorlds 57/100 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 Compare
Teachableteachable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teachable 57/100 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 3 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
TalentLMStalentlms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TalentLMS 52/100 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 3 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
D2Ld2l.comSee also Transparency alternatives to D2L 43/100 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 Compare
Arloarlo.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Arlo 39/100 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 Compare
Continucontinu.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Continu 30/100 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 Compare
Articulatearticulate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Articulate 39/100 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named 4 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 Compare
Cypher Learningcypherlearning.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypher Learning 39/100 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 5 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 Compare
eloomieloomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eloomi 39/100 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 4 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 Compare
iSpringispringsolutions.comSee also Transparency alternatives to iSpring 30/100 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +3 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.