Transparency alternatives to Unzer
Other Payment processing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Unzer. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 30 that differ from Unzer on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Unzer has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, 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 Unzer” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Unzer | Found at Unzer, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxiomaxio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Maxio | 74/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Adyenadyen.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Adyen | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Molliemollie.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mollie | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Recurlyrecurly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Recurly | 43/100 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| GoCardlessgocardless.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GoCardless | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Airwallexairwallex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airwallex | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Creemcreem.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Creem | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Lemon Squeezylemonsqueezy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lemon Squeezy | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Paddlepaddle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Paddle | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Squaresquareup.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Square | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Stripestripe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stripe | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Stancerstancer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stancer | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.