Transparency alternatives to Auphonic
Other Video and podcast hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Auphonic. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 49 that differ from Auphonic on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Auphonic has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Auphonic” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Auphonic | Found at Auphonic, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loomloom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loom | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Simplecastsimplecast.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Simplecast | 78/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| WeVideowevideo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WeVideo | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| api.videoapi.videoSee also Transparency alternatives to api.video | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| JWXjwx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to JWX | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Vidyardvidyard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vidyard | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Transistortransistor.fmSee also Transparency alternatives to Transistor | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Muxmux.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mux | 52/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Vimeovimeo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vimeo | 43/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Tellatella.tvSee also Transparency alternatives to Tella | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dacastdacast.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dacast | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Cleanvoicecleanvoice.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Cleanvoice | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.