Transparency alternatives to Flexport
Other Shipping and logistics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Flexport. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 82 that differ from Flexport on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Flexport has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Flexport” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Flexport | Found at Flexport, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AfterShipaftership.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AfterShip | 83/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Sendcloudsendcloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sendcloud | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| FourKitesfourkites.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FourKites | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Metapackmetapack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Metapack | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Bringgbringg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bringg | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| EasyPosteasypost.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EasyPost | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Easyshipeasyship.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Easyship | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ShipStationshipstation.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ShipStation | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Freightosfreightos.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Freightos | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Locuslocus.shSee also Transparency alternatives to Locus | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Shippogoshippo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Shippo | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Turvoturvo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Turvo | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 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.