Transparency alternatives to Addingwell
Other Marketing attribution vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Addingwell. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Addingwell on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Addingwell has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Addingwell” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Addingwell | Found at Addingwell, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cometlycometly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cometly | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Supermetricssupermetrics.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Supermetrics | 65/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Analyzifyanalyzify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Analyzify | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Dubdub.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Dub | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Northbeamnorthbeam.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Northbeam | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 4 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Clarisightsclarisights.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clarisights | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Factors.aifactors.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Factors.ai | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| HockeyStackhockeystack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HockeyStack | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Short.ioshort.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Short.io | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ReportGardenreportgarden.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ReportGarden | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Tealiumtealium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tealium | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Whatagraphwhatagraph.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whatagraph | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, 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.