Transparency alternatives to Payrexx
Other Payment processing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Payrexx. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 30 that differ from Payrexx on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Payrexx has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Payrexx” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Payrexx | Found at Payrexx, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxiomaxio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Maxio | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Molliemollie.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mollie | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Adyenadyen.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Adyen | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Airwallexairwallex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airwallex | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Creemcreem.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Creem | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| GoCardlessgocardless.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoCardless | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Recurlyrecurly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Recurly | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | nothing | Compare |
| Stancerstancer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stancer | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Lemon Squeezylemonsqueezy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lemon Squeezy | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Paddlepaddle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Paddle | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Squaresquareup.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Square | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Stripestripe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stripe | 30/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | 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.