Transparency alternatives to Intris
Other Shipping and logistics vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Intris does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 82 that differ from Intris on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Intris 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, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “publishes and Intris does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Intris does not | Intris publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AfterShipaftership.com | 83/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Sendcloudsendcloud.com | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| FourKitesfourkites.com | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Bringgbringg.com | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| EasyPosteasypost.com | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Easyshipeasyship.com | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Metapackmetapack.com | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ShipStationshipstation.com | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Locuslocus.sh | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Waybillerwaybiller.com | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cargobasecargobase.com | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Seven Senderssevensenders.com | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, 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.