Transparency alternatives to Yesware
Other Sales engagement vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Yesware. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 55 that differ from Yesware on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Yesware has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Yesware” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Yesware | Found at Yesware, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lushalusha.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lusha | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Mixmaxmixmax.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixmax | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Showpadshowpad.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Showpad | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Snov.iosnov.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snov.io | 62/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| ZoomInfozoominfo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ZoomInfo | 73/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Hunterhunter.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hunter | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Clearbitclearbit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clearbit | 65/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Scratchpadscratchpad.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scratchpad | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Apolloapollo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Apollo | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Gonggong.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Gong | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Instantlyinstantly.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Instantly | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| PhantomBusterphantombuster.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PhantomBuster | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.