Transparency alternatives to CoSchedule
Other Social media management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at CoSchedule. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from CoSchedule on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
CoSchedule has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at CoSchedule” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at CoSchedule | Found at CoSchedule, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dash Socialdashsocial.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dash Social | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Sprout Socialsproutsocial.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sprout Social | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Hootsuitehootsuite.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hootsuite | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Statusbrewstatusbrew.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Statusbrew | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Sprinklrsprinklr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sprinklr | 43/100 | 5 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Vista Socialvistasocial.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vista Social | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Agorapulseagorapulse.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agorapulse | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Emplifiemplifi.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Emplifi | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Publerpubler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Publer | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Brandwatchbrandwatch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Brandwatch | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| ContentStudiocontentstudio.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to ContentStudio | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Khoroskhoros.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Khoros | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.