Transparency alternatives to XTM
Other Translation and localization vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at XTM. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from XTM on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
XTM has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, 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 XTM” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at XTM | Found at XTM, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lokaliselokalise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lokalise | 87/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| LingoHublingohub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LingoHub | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| wxrkswxrks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to wxrks | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Locizelocize.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Locize | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Transifextransifex.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Transifex | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Smartcatsmartcat.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartcat | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| DeepLdeepl.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DeepL | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Crowdincrowdin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Crowdin | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Traduoratraduora.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Traduora | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Wordbeewordbee.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Wordbee | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Weglotweglot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Weglot | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| ContentQuo Evaluate HTcontentquo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ContentQuo Evaluate HT | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | 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.