Transparency alternatives to Revenue.io
Other Sales engagement vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Revenue.io. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 55 that differ from Revenue.io on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Revenue.io has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Revenue.io” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Revenue.io | Found at Revenue.io, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lushalusha.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lusha | 74/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Mixmaxmixmax.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixmax | 74/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Clearbitclearbit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clearbit | 65/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Snov.iosnov.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snov.io | 62/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Fathomfathom.videoSee also Transparency alternatives to Fathom | 57/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| PhantomBusterphantombuster.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PhantomBuster | 57/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Yeswareyesware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Yesware | 57/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Clariclari.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clari | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| lemlistlemlist.comSee also Transparency alternatives to lemlist | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| ZoomInfozoominfo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZoomInfo | 73/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Hunterhunter.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hunter | 70/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Showpadshowpad.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Showpad | 65/100 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | nothing | 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.