Transparency alternatives to Ams Erp
Other Manufacturing execution vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ams Erp. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 47 that differ from Ams Erp on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ams Erp has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Ams Erp” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ams Erp | Found at Ams Erp, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tuliptulip.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Tulip | 39/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dozukidozuki.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dozuki | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Reverreverscore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rever | 26/100 | 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Evoconevocon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Evocon | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ECI Solutionsecisolutions.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ECI Solutions | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Forcam Eniscoforcam-enisco.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Forcam Enisco | 26/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Scytec DataXchangescytec.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scytec DataXchange | 26/100 | 1 Public pricing | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Abasabas-erp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Abas | 17/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Asset Scienceassetscience.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Asset Science | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| BRAINRbrainr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BRAINR | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Machinemetricsmachinemetrics.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Machinemetrics | 17/100 | 1 Status page with history | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| MPDVmpdv.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MPDV | 17/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.