Transparency alternatives to Great Question
Other User research and testing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Great Question. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from Great Question on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Great Question has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Great Question” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Great Question | Found at Great Question, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User Interviewsuserinterviews.comSee also Transparency alternatives to User Interviews | 83/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| UserTestingusertesting.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UserTesting | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Attention Insightattentioninsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Attention Insight | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Aureliusaureliuslab.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aurelius | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Useberryuseberry.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Useberry | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Loop11loop11.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loop11 | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Sprigsprig.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sprig | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Ballparkballparkhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ballpark | 48/100 | 1 Status page with history | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Graingrain.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Grain | 48/100 | 1 Status page with history | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Condenscondens.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Condens | 43/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Heliohelio.zurb.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Helio | 39/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| UXtweakuxtweak.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXtweak | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +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.