Transparency alternatives to iMocha
Other Recruiting assessment vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at iMocha. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 42 that differ from iMocha on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
iMocha has 8 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, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at iMocha” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at iMocha | Found at iMocha, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryqbryq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bryq | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Toggl Hiretoggl.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Toggl Hire | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Adafaceadaface.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Adaface | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Predictive Indexpredictiveindex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Predictive Index | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| HireVuehirevue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HireVue | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| TestGorillatestgorilla.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TestGorilla | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| CoderPadcoderpad.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to CoderPad | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| CodeSignalcodesignal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeSignal | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Qualifiedqualified.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Qualified | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Traitifytraitify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Traitify | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Criteriacriteriacorp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Criteria | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Feenyxfeenyx.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Feenyx | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 1 Data location stated | 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.