Transparency alternatives to Ballpark
Other User research and testing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ballpark. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from Ballpark on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ballpark has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Ballpark” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ballpark | Found at Ballpark, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User Interviewsuserinterviews.comSee also Transparency alternatives to User Interviews | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Attention Insightattentioninsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Attention Insight | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| UserTestingusertesting.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UserTesting | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Aureliusaureliuslab.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aurelius | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Useberryuseberry.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Useberry | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Loop11loop11.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loop11 | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Sprigsprig.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sprig | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Condenscondens.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Condens | 43/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Great Questiongreatquestion.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Great Question | 43/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Heliohelio.zurb.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Helio | 39/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| UXtweakuxtweak.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXtweak | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Qatalystqatalyst.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Qatalyst | 26/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +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.