SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Creem

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

12 shown of 31 that differ from Creem on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Creem has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Creem” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at CreemFound at Creem, not found there
Maxiomaxio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Maxio 74/100 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 1 Status page with history Compare
Recurlyrecurly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Recurly 43/100 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Molliemollie.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mollie 61/100 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact nothing Compare
Adyenadyen.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Adyen 52/100 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 1 Status page with history Compare
Airwallexairwallex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airwallex 48/100 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
GoCardlessgocardless.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoCardless 43/100 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Stripestripe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stripe 30/100 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Paddlepaddle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Paddle 39/100 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Stancerstancer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stancer 39/100 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Squaresquareup.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Square 35/100 2 Data location stated, Certifications named 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Novalnetnovalnet.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Novalnet 27/100 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 Compare
Lemon Squeezylemonsqueezy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lemon Squeezy 43/100 1 Data location stated 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change 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.