Transparency alternatives to Batch
Other Transactional email and notifications vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Batch. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 30 that differ from Batch on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Batch has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, 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 Batch” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Batch | Found at Batch, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resendresend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Resend | 83/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +4 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Mailosaurmailosaur.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailosaur | 65/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Knockknock.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Knock | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Mailtrapmailtrap.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailtrap | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Plunkuseplunk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Plunk | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Streamgetstream.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Stream | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| OneSignalonesignal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneSignal | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| ClickSendclicksend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ClickSend | 35/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Bentobentonow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bento | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Novunovu.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Novu | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Mission Inboxmissioninbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mission Inbox | 39/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Ablyably.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ably | 35/100 | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | 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.