Transparency alternatives to Quentn
Other Marketing automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Quentn. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from Quentn on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Quentn has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Quentn” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Quentn | Found at Quentn, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loopsloops.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Loops | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| GetResponsegetresponse.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GetResponse | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Insider Oneinsiderone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Insider One | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Keapkeap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keap | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Airshipairship.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airship | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Bloomreachbloomreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bloomreach | 48/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Customerlycustomerly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Customerly | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Mappmapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapp | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| CleverTapclevertap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverTap | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Brazebraze.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Braze | 26/100 | 4 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Postscriptpostscript.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Postscript | 56/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Upp.aiupp.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Upp.ai | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 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.