Transparency alternatives to Profit.co
Other Performance management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Profit.co. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Profit.co on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Profit.co has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Profit.co” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Profit.co | Found at Profit.co, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Betterworksbetterworks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Betterworks | 65/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | Compare |
| PerformYardperformyard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PerformYard | 65/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Leapsomeleapsome.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Leapsome | 61/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Latticelattice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lattice | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Perdooperdoo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Perdoo | 61/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Culture Ampcultureamp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Culture Amp | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| WorkBoardworkboard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WorkBoard | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Kudoboardkudoboard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kudoboard | 30/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | Compare |
| Nectarnectarhr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nectar | 48/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Small Improvementssmall-improvements.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Small Improvements | 43/100 | 1 Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| 15Five15five.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 15Five | 39/100 | 1 Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Assemblyjoinassembly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Assembly | 39/100 | 1 Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, 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.