Transparency alternatives to Omnia Retail
Other Proposals and quoting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Omnia Retail. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Omnia Retail on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Omnia Retail has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Omnia Retail” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Omnia Retail | Found at Omnia Retail, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AutoRFPautorfp.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to AutoRFP | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Scoroscoro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scoro | 65/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| QorusDocsqorusdocs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to QorusDocs | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Responsiveresponsive.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Responsive | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Loopioloopio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loopio | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Mercuramercura.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mercura | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Roomleroomle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Roomle | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Arphiearphie.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Arphie | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Foveatefoveate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foveate | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| D-Tools Cloudd-tools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to D-Tools Cloud | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Tactontacton.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tacton | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Qwilrqwilr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Qwilr | 48/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.