Transparency alternatives to User Interviews
Other User research and testing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at User Interviews. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from User Interviews on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
User Interviews has 2 gaps in what we could measure: Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at User Interviews” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at User Interviews | Found at User Interviews, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballparkballparkhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ballpark | 48/100 | 1 Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Graingrain.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Grain | 48/100 | 1 Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| UserTestingusertesting.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UserTesting | 48/100 | 1 Status page with history | 6 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Lyssnalyssna.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lyssna | 26/100 | 1 Status page with history | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | Compare |
| Qatalystqatalyst.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Qatalyst | 26/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | Compare |
| Attention Insightattentioninsight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Attention Insight | 57/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Condenscondens.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Condens | 43/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | Compare |
| Great Questiongreatquestion.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Great Question | 43/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Sprigsprig.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sprig | 43/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Aureliusaureliuslab.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aurelius | 39/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Heliohelio.zurb.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Helio | 39/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | Compare |
| UXArmyuxarmy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UXArmy | 39/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 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.