Transparency alternatives to SecurityHive
Other Security guard workforce vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at SecurityHive. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 17 that differ from SecurityHive on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
SecurityHive has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at SecurityHive” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at SecurityHive | Found at SecurityHive, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trackforce Valianttrackforcevaliant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trackforce Valiant | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Onticontic.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontic | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Connecteamconnecteam.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Connecteam | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Belfrybelfrysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Belfry | 26/100 | 1 Status page with history | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Winteamteamsoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Winteam | 13/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Timekeeping Systemsguard1.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Timekeeping Systems | 5/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| GuardsProguardspro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GuardsPro | 11/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| BizSchedulerbizscheduler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BizScheduler | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Detexdetex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Detex | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Guardhouseguardhouse.com.auSee also Transparency alternatives to Guardhouse | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Novagemsnovagems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Novagems | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Vertxvertx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vertx | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.