Transparency alternatives to Agile Ticketing Solutions
Other Venue ticketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Agile Ticketing Solutions. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 26 that differ from Agile Ticketing Solutions on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Agile Ticketing Solutions has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Agile Ticketing Solutions” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Agile Ticketing Solutions | Found at Agile Ticketing Solutions, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AudienceViewaudienceview.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AudienceView | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Rollerroller.softwareSee also Transparency alternatives to Roller | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| TicketSpiceticketspice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketSpice | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| n-gage.ion-gage.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to n-gage.io | 26/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| TicketingHubticketinghub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketingHub | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| VISITvisit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to VISIT | 17/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| accessoaccesso.comSee also Transparency alternatives to accesso | 13/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| DICEdice.fmSee also Transparency alternatives to DICE | 13/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Skiddleskiddle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skiddle | 9/100 | 1 Status page with history | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| TicketCoticketco.eventsSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketCo | 9/100 | 1 Status page with history | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Vantixvantixsystems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vantix | 13/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Connect&GOconnectngo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Connect&GO | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 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.