Transparency alternatives to Pitney Bowes
Other Print and packaging software vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Pitney Bowes. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Pitney Bowes on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pitney Bowes has 10 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, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Pitney Bowes” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Pitney Bowes | Found at Pitney Bowes, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEAL Systemssealsystems.deSee also Transparency alternatives to SEAL Systems | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Francotyp-Postaliafp-francotyp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Francotyp-Postalia | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Printixprintix.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Printix | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Smart Communicationssmartcommunications.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smart Communications | 26/100 | 3 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Vjoonvjoon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vjoon | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| 3DPrinterOS3dprinteros.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 3DPrinterOS | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Customilycustomily.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Customily | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Threekitthreekit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Threekit | 30/100 | 2 Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Teesomteesom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teesom | 27/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Priintpriint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Priint | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Printboxgetprintbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Printbox | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Onlineprintersonlineprinters.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Onlineprinters | 17/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | 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.