Transparency alternatives to Subskribe
Other Proposals and quoting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Subskribe. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 39 that differ from Subskribe on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Subskribe has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, 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 Subskribe” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Subskribe | Found at Subskribe, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AutoRFPautorfp.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to AutoRFP | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Scoroscoro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scoro | 65/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| QorusDocsqorusdocs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to QorusDocs | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Responsiveresponsive.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Responsive | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Loopioloopio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loopio | 39/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Foveatefoveate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foveate | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Qwilrqwilr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Qwilr | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Mercuramercura.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mercura | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Roomleroomle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Roomle | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Arphiearphie.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Arphie | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| PROSpros.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PROS | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Omnia Retailomniaretail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Omnia Retail | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 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.