Transparency alternatives to Clearbit
Other Sales engagement vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Clearbit. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 55 that differ from Clearbit on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Clearbit has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Clearbit” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Clearbit | Found at Clearbit, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lushalusha.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lusha | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Mixmaxmixmax.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixmax | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Snov.iosnov.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snov.io | 62/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Hunterhunter.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hunter | 70/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Scratchpadscratchpad.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scratchpad | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Apolloapollo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Apollo | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Fathomfathom.videoSee also Transparency alternatives to Fathom | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Instantlyinstantly.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Instantly | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| PhantomBusterphantombuster.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PhantomBuster | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Albacrossalbacross.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Albacross | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Smartleadsmartlead.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartlead | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| lemlistlemlist.comSee also Transparency alternatives to lemlist | 43/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +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.