Transparency alternatives to Customerly
Other Marketing automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Customerly. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Customerly on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Customerly has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, 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 Customerly” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Customerly | Found at Customerly, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GetResponsegetresponse.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GetResponse | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| CleverTapclevertap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverTap | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Brazebraze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Braze | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Keapkeap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keap | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Postscriptpostscript.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Postscript | 56/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 2 Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Airshipairship.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airship | 52/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Insider Oneinsiderone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Insider One | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Loopsloops.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Loops | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Mappmapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapp | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Bloomreachbloomreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bloomreach | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Upp.aiupp.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Upp.ai | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Iterableiterable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Iterable | 17/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +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.