Transparency alternatives to Elromco
Other Shipping and logistics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Elromco. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 81 that differ from Elromco on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Elromco has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, 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 Elromco” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Elromco | Found at Elromco, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AfterShipaftership.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AfterShip | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Sendcloudsendcloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sendcloud | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| FourKitesfourkites.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FourKites | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Bringgbringg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bringg | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Easyshipeasyship.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Easyship | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Metapackmetapack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Metapack | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Quivoquivo.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Quivo | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| EasyPosteasypost.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EasyPost | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ShipStationshipstation.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ShipStation | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Locuslocus.shSee also Transparency alternatives to Locus | 35/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Seven Senderssevensenders.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Seven Senders | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| nShiftnshift.comSee also Transparency alternatives to nShift | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 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.