Transparency alternatives to AutoRFP
Other Proposals and quoting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at AutoRFP. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from AutoRFP on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
AutoRFP has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at AutoRFP” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at AutoRFP | Found at AutoRFP, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwilrqwilr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Qwilr | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| PROSpros.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PROS | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Scoroscoro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scoro | 65/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Omnia Retailomniaretail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Omnia Retail | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Foveatefoveate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foveate | 48/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Proposifyproposify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Proposify | 43/100 | 1 Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Roomleroomle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Roomle | 43/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Arphiearphie.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Arphie | 39/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Loopioloopio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loopio | 39/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| D-Tools Cloudd-tools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to D-Tools Cloud | 35/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| reDockredock.comSee also Transparency alternatives to reDock | 22/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | Compare |
| Ombudombud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ombud | 19/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 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.