Transparency alternatives to Instructure
Other Learning management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Instructure. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 42 that differ from Instructure on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Instructure has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Instructure” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Instructure | Found at Instructure, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skilljarskilljar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skilljar | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Codiocodio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Codio | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| LearnWorldslearnworlds.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LearnWorlds | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| TalentLMStalentlms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TalentLMS | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Teachableteachable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teachable | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Anthologyanthology.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anthology | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| D2Ld2l.comSee also Transparency alternatives to D2L | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Arloarlo.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Arlo | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Articulatearticulate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Articulate | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Cypher Learningcypherlearning.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypher Learning | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Continucontinu.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Continu | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| iSpringispringsolutions.comSee also Transparency alternatives to iSpring | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 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.