Transparency alternatives to Aderant
Other Legal practice management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Aderant. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 48 that differ from Aderant on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Aderant has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Aderant” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Aderant | Found at Aderant, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luminanceluminance.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Luminance | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cerenadecerenade.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cerenade | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Amberloamberlo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Amberlo | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Litifylitify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Litify | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Assembly Neosassemblysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Assembly Neos | 35/100 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| MyCasemycase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MyCase | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Matters.Cloudmatters.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Matters.Cloud | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tabs3tabs3.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tabs3 | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Arkenarken.legalSee also Transparency alternatives to Arken | 17/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Dexcodexco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dexco | 17/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Easysofteasysoft-usa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Easysoft | 17/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Estateablyestateably.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Estateably | 17/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +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.