Transparency alternatives to Recurly
Other Payment processing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Recurly. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 31 that differ from Recurly on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Recurly has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Recurly” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Recurly | Found at Recurly, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxiomaxio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Maxio | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Adyenadyen.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Adyen | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Molliemollie.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mollie | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Creemcreem.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Creem | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 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) | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Airwallexairwallex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airwallex | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| GoCardlessgocardless.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoCardless | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Paddlepaddle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Paddle | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Unzerunzer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Unzer | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Lemon Squeezylemonsqueezy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lemon Squeezy | 43/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Stripestripe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stripe | 30/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Chargebeechargebee.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Chargebee | 26/100 | 1 Status page with history | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 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.