Transparency alternatives to DeepL
Other Translation and localization vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at DeepL. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from DeepL on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
DeepL has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at DeepL” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at DeepL | Found at DeepL, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lokaliselokalise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lokalise | 87/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| wxrkswxrks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to wxrks | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Transifextransifex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Transifex | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| LingoHublingohub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LingoHub | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Smartcatsmartcat.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartcat | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Traduoratraduora.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Traduora | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Locizelocize.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Locize | 65/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Crowdincrowdin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Crowdin | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Gridlygridly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gridly | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| memoQmemoq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to memoQ | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Smartlingsmartling.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartling | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Phrasephrase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Phrase | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 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.