Transparency alternatives to D-Tools Cloud
Other Proposals and quoting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at D-Tools Cloud. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from D-Tools Cloud on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
D-Tools Cloud has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at D-Tools Cloud” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at D-Tools Cloud | Found at D-Tools Cloud, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AutoRFPautorfp.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to AutoRFP | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Responsiveresponsive.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Responsive | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Mercuramercura.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mercura | 43/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 4 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Scoroscoro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scoro | 65/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Qwilrqwilr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Qwilr | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Proposifyproposify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Proposify | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| QorusDocsqorusdocs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to QorusDocs | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Foveatefoveate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foveate | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Omnia Retailomniaretail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Omnia Retail | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Loopioloopio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loopio | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| PROSpros.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PROS | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Pricefxpricefx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pricefx | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 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.