Transparency alternatives to Airship
Other Marketing automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Airship. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Airship on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Airship has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at Airship” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Airship | Found at Airship, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GetResponsegetresponse.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GetResponse | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CleverTapclevertap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverTap | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Keapkeap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keap | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Postscriptpostscript.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Postscript | 56/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Mappmapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapp | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Bloomreachbloomreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bloomreach | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Verogetvero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vero | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | 4 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Customerlycustomerly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Customerly | 57/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Insider Oneinsiderone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Insider One | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Loopsloops.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Loops | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Beehiivbeehiiv.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Beehiiv | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Quentnquentn.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Quentn | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +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.