Transparency alternatives to Coassemble
Other Learning management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Coassemble. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 42 that differ from Coassemble on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Coassemble has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Coassemble” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Coassemble | Found at Coassemble, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthologyanthology.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anthology | 48/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +3 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Skilljarskilljar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skilljar | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Codiocodio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Codio | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Teachableteachable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teachable | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Thinkificthinkific.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Thinkific | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| TalentLMStalentlms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TalentLMS | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| eloomieloomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eloomi | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Instructureinstructure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Instructure | 30/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| LearnWorldslearnworlds.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LearnWorlds | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Continucontinu.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Continu | 43/100 | 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| D2Ld2l.comSee also Transparency alternatives to D2L | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Articulatearticulate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Articulate | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.