SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Silverflow

Other Payment orchestration vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Silverflow. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 33 that differ from Silverflow on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Silverflow 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, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Silverflow” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at SilverflowFound at Silverflow, 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 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Rebillyrebilly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rebilly 57/100 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
IXOPAYixopay.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IXOPAY 45/100 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Spreedlyspreedly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Spreedly 43/100 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Unitunit.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Unit 39/100 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
TrueLayertruelayer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TrueLayer 39/100 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named nothing Compare
Payrailspayrails.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Payrails 35/100 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Marqetamarqeta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Marqeta 26/100 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) 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, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Corefycorefy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corefy 30/100 2 Data location stated, Public pricing 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Increaseincrease.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Increase 30/100 2 Status page with history, Public pricing nothing Compare
BR-DGEbr-dge.toSee also Transparency alternatives to BR-DGE 26/100 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) 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.