Transparency alternatives to Fatsoma
Other Venue ticketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Fatsoma. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 18 that differ from Fatsoma on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Fatsoma has 11 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Fatsoma” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Fatsoma | Found at Fatsoma, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AudienceViewaudienceview.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AudienceView | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Rollerroller.softwareSee also Transparency alternatives to Roller | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| TicketSpiceticketspice.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketSpice | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| n-gage.ion-gage.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to n-gage.io | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Agile Ticketing Solutionsagiletix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agile Ticketing Solutions | 17/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Skiddleskiddle.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skiddle | 17/100 | 1 Status page with history | nothing | Compare |
| TicketingHubticketinghub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketingHub | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| VISITvisit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to VISIT | 17/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | nothing | Compare |
| accessoaccesso.comSee also Transparency alternatives to accesso | 13/100 | 1 Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| DICEdice.fmSee also Transparency alternatives to DICE | 13/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Vantixvantixsystems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vantix | 13/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| TicketCoticketco.eventsSee also Transparency alternatives to TicketCo | 9/100 | 1 Status page with history | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.