Transparency alternatives to Uscreen
Other Video and podcast hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Uscreen. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 48 that differ from Uscreen on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Uscreen has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Uscreen” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Uscreen | Found at Uscreen, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| api.videoapi.videoSee also Transparency alternatives to api.video | 78/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Simplecastsimplecast.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Simplecast | 78/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| JWXjwx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to JWX | 70/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| WeVideowevideo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WeVideo | 70/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Descriptdescript.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Descript | 61/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Loomloom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Loom | 61/100 | 6 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Muxmux.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mux | 52/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Vimeovimeo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vimeo | 43/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Vidyardvidyard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vidyard | 57/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Transistortransistor.fmSee also Transparency alternatives to Transistor | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dacastdacast.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dacast | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Movingimagemovingimage.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Movingimage | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, 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.