Transparency alternatives to Rebilly
Other Payment orchestration vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Rebilly. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from Rebilly on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Rebilly has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Rebilly” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Rebilly | Found at Rebilly, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yunoy.unoSee also Transparency alternatives to Yuno | 65/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Unitunit.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Unit | 39/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Spreedlyspreedly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Spreedly | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Payrailspayrails.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Payrails | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Marqetamarqeta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Marqeta | 26/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| TrueLayertruelayer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TrueLayer | 26/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Increaseincrease.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Increase | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Token.iotoken.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Token.io | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Solarissolarisgroup.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Solaris | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Corefycorefy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corefy | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Modulrmodulrfinance.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Modulr | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Nomupaynomupay.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nomupay | 22/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +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.