Transparency alternatives to AudienceView
Other Venue ticketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at AudienceView. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 26 that differ from AudienceView on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
AudienceView has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at AudienceView” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at AudienceView | Found at AudienceView, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TicketSpiceticketspice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketSpice | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Rollerroller.softwareSee also Transparency alternatives to Roller | 35/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| n-gage.ion-gage.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to n-gage.io | 26/100 | 1 Data location stated | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Agile Ticketing Solutionsagiletix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agile Ticketing Solutions | 17/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Skiddleskiddle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skiddle | 17/100 | 1 Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| TicketingHubticketinghub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketingHub | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| VISITvisit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to VISIT | 17/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| accessoaccesso.comSee also Transparency alternatives to accesso | 13/100 | 1 Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| DICEdice.fmSee also Transparency alternatives to DICE | 13/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| TicketCoticketco.eventsSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketCo | 9/100 | 1 Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Vantixvantixsystems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vantix | 13/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Connect&GOconnectngo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Connect&GO | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +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.