SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Jersey Watch

Other Sports team management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Jersey Watch. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 38 that differ from Jersey Watch on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Jersey Watch has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, 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 Jersey Watch” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at Jersey WatchFound at Jersey Watch, not found there
Hudlhudl.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hudl 50/100 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 1 Public pricing Compare
SportsEnginesportsengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SportsEngine 52/100 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 nothing Compare
Spondspond.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Spond 39/100 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 1 Public pricing Compare
Kitman Labskitmanlabs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kitman Labs 30/100 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
TeamSnapteamsnap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TeamSnap 43/100 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact nothing Compare
Pitcheropitchero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pitchero 35/100 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Trackmantrackman.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trackman 30/100 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 1 Public pricing Compare
Teamworksteamworks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teamworks 22/100 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
TeamLinktteamlinkt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TeamLinkt 35/100 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact nothing Compare
Sportradarsportradar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sportradar 30/100 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change 1 Public pricing Compare
Kinexonkinexon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kinexon 26/100 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact 1 Public pricing Compare
UDiscudisc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UDisc 26/100 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) 1 Public pricing 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.