Transparency alternatives to Cerenade
Other Legal practice management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Cerenade. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 48 that differ from Cerenade on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Cerenade has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Cerenade” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Cerenade | Found at Cerenade, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amberloamberlo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Amberlo | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Assembly Neosassemblysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Assembly Neos | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Aderantaderant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aderant | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| MyCasemycase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MyCase | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Luminanceluminance.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Luminance | 65/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Litifylitify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Litify | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Matters.Cloudmatters.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Matters.Cloud | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Smokeballsmokeball.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smokeball | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Tabs3tabs3.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tabs3 | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Legitolegito.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Legito | 29/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| CARET Legalcaretlegal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CARET Legal | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| CosmoLexcosmolex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CosmoLex | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 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.