Transparency alternatives to Ontic
Other Security guard workforce vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ontic. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 18 that differ from Ontic on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ontic has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Ontic” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ontic | Found at Ontic, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trackforcetrackforce.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trackforce | 61/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Trackforce Valianttrackforcevaliant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trackforce Valiant | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Connecteamconnecteam.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Connecteam | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Belfrybelfrysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Belfry | 26/100 | 1 Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| SecurityHivesecurityhive.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to SecurityHive | 22/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Timekeeping Systemsguard1.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Timekeeping Systems | 5/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +4 | Compare |
| Winteamteamsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Winteam | 13/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| GuardsProguardspro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GuardsPro | 11/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| BizSchedulerbizscheduler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BizScheduler | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Detexdetex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Detex | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Guardhouseguardhouse.com.auSee also Transparency alternatives to Guardhouse | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Novagemsnovagems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Novagems | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | 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.