Transparency alternatives to Objective ECM
Other Records management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Objective ECM. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 16 that differ from Objective ECM on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Objective ECM has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Objective ECM” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Objective ECM | Found at Objective ECM, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collabwarecollabware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Collabware | 22/100 | 1 Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Synergis Adeptsynergissoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Synergis Adept | 22/100 | 1 Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| RecordPointrecordpoint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RecordPoint | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Computhinkcomputhink.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Computhink | 9/100 | 1 Public pricing | 5 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| AvePoint Recordsavepoint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AvePoint Records | 30/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Ricoh Recordsricoh.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ricoh Records | 13/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Access Corpaccesscorp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Access Corp | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Cott Systemscottsystems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cott Systems | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Feithfeith.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Feith | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| PreservationVaultinfopreserve.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PreservationVault | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Square 9square-9.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Square 9 | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Zasiozasio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zasio | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 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.