Transparency alternatives to Dacast
Other Video and podcast hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Dacast. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 49 that differ from Dacast on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Dacast has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Dacast” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Dacast | Found at Dacast, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loomloom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loom | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Vidyardvidyard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vidyard | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Simplecastsimplecast.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Simplecast | 78/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| WeVideowevideo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WeVideo | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| api.videoapi.videoSee also Transparency alternatives to api.video | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| JWXjwx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to JWX | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Transistortransistor.fmSee also Transparency alternatives to Transistor | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Muxmux.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mux | 52/100 | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Vimeovimeo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vimeo | 43/100 | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Tellatella.tvSee also Transparency alternatives to Tella | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Cleanvoicecleanvoice.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Cleanvoice | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Acastacast.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Acast | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 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.