Transparency alternatives to Payneteasy
Other Payment orchestration vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Payneteasy. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from Payneteasy on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Payneteasy has 10 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, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Payneteasy” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Payneteasy | Found at Payneteasy, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yunoy.unoSee also Transparency alternatives to Yuno | 65/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Rebillyrebilly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rebilly | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| IXOPAYixopay.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IXOPAY | 45/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Spreedlyspreedly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Spreedly | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Unitunit.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Unit | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Payrailspayrails.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Payrails | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Increaseincrease.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Increase | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Marqetamarqeta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Marqeta | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| TrueLayertruelayer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TrueLayer | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Yapilyyapily.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Yapily | 26/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Corefycorefy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corefy | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Modulrmodulrfinance.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Modulr | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 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.