Transparency alternatives to Mailosaur
Other Transactional email and notifications vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Mailosaur. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 30 that differ from Mailosaur on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Mailosaur has 3 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Mailosaur” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Mailosaur | Found at Mailosaur, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resendresend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Resend | 83/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Knockknock.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Knock | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| OneSignalonesignal.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneSignal | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | Compare |
| Mailtrapmailtrap.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailtrap | 57/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Novunovu.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Novu | 48/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Plunkuseplunk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Plunk | 48/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Ablyably.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ably | 35/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| SocketLabssocketlabs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SocketLabs | 9/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 9 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +6 | Compare |
| Bentobentonow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bento | 48/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Streamgetstream.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Stream | 48/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Couriercourier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Courier | 39/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 5 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| SMTP2GOsmtp2go.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SMTP2GO | 39/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 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.