Transparency alternatives to Intris
Other Shipping and logistics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Intris. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 81 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 “Found there, not found at Intris” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Intris | Found at Intris, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AfterShipaftership.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AfterShip | 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.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sendcloud | 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.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FourKites | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Locuslocus.shSee also Transparency alternatives to Locus | 35/100 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Bringgbringg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bringg | 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.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EasyPost | 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.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Easyship | 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.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Metapack | 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.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ShipStation | 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 |
| Elromcoelromco.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Elromco | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Quivoquivo.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Quivo | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Seven Senderssevensenders.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Seven Senders | 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.