Transparency alternatives to Reply
Other Sales engagement vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Reply. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 55 that differ from Reply on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Reply has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Reply” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Reply | Found at Reply, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lushalusha.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lusha | 74/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Clearbitclearbit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clearbit | 65/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | Compare |
| Showpadshowpad.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Showpad | 57/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Mixmaxmixmax.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixmax | 74/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| ZoomInfozoominfo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZoomInfo | 73/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Scratchpadscratchpad.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scratchpad | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Apolloapollo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Apollo | 57/100 | 5 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Revenue.iorevenue.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Revenue.io | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Outreachoutreach.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Outreach | 39/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Mindticklemindtickle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mindtickle | 38/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Hunterhunter.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hunter | 70/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Gonggong.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Gong | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Public pricing | 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.