Transparency alternatives to Onit Digital
Other Marketing automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Onit Digital. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from Onit Digital on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Onit Digital has 12 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Onit Digital” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Onit Digital | Found at Onit Digital, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GetResponsegetresponse.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GetResponse | 57/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| Keapkeap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keap | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Customerlycustomerly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Customerly | 57/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Airshipairship.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airship | 52/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Insider Oneinsiderone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Insider One | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Mappmapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapp | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Loopsloops.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Loops | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Bloomreachbloomreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bloomreach | 43/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Verogetvero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vero | 43/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| CleverTapclevertap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverTap | 39/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Brazebraze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Braze | 35/100 | 5 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Postscriptpostscript.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Postscript | 56/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | nothing | 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.