Transparency alternatives to Propel
Other Quality management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Propel. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 85 that differ from Propel on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Propel has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, 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 Propel” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Propel | Found at Propel, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qualioqualio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Qualio | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| SimplerQMSsimplerqms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SimplerQMS | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Ketryxketryx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ketryx | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| AM System Classicamsystem.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AM System Classic | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Grand Avenue Softwaregrandavenue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Grand Avenue Software | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Ideagenideagen.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ideagen | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| MasterControlmastercontrol.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MasterControl | 22/100 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Castor EDCcastoredc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Castor EDC | 17/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Cognidoxcognidox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cognidox | 39/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| myoshmyosh.comSee also Transparency alternatives to myosh | 39/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Certainty Softwarecertaintysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Certainty Software | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| TrackWisespartasystems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TrackWise | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 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.