Transparency alternatives to Courier
Other Transactional email and notifications vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Courier. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 30 that differ from Courier on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Courier has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, 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 Courier” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Courier | Found at Courier, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resendresend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Resend | 83/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Mailosaurmailosaur.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailosaur | 74/100 | 5 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Plunkuseplunk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Plunk | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Knockknock.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Knock | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Mailtrapmailtrap.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailtrap | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Novunovu.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Novu | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| OneSignalonesignal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneSignal | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| ClickSendclicksend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ClickSend | 35/100 | 3 Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Bentobentonow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bento | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Streamgetstream.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Stream | 48/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| SMTPetersmtpeter.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SMTPeter | 36/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Ablyably.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ably | 35/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Subprocessor list | 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.