Transparency alternatives to OneSignal
Other Transactional email and notifications vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at OneSignal. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 30 that differ from OneSignal on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
OneSignal has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at OneSignal” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at OneSignal | Found at OneSignal, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mailosaurmailosaur.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailosaur | 65/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Resendresend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Resend | 83/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Streamgetstream.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Stream | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Knockknock.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Knock | 74/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Bentobentonow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bento | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Mission Inboxmissioninbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mission Inbox | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| ClickSendclicksend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ClickSend | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Mailtrapmailtrap.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailtrap | 57/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Novunovu.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Novu | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Plunkuseplunk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Plunk | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Couriercourier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Courier | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| SMTP2GOsmtp2go.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SMTP2GO | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 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.