Transparency alternatives to Interzero
Other Waste management software vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Interzero. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 22 that differ from Interzero on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Interzero 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 Interzero” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Interzero | Found at Interzero, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wasteboxwastebox.bizSee also Transparency alternatives to Wastebox | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Tegostegos-group.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tegos | 22/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Ecoprogecoprog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ecoprog | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | nothing | Compare |
| Resourcifyresourcify.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Resourcify | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Sap Wasteprologa.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Sap Waste | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Reclayreclay-group.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reclay | 18/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Zentekzentek.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Zentek | 17/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Rubiconrubicon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rubicon | 17/100 | 1 Status page with history | nothing | Compare |
| Landbelllandbell.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Landbell | 13/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Recycle Track Systemsrts.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Recycle Track Systems | 9/100 | 1 Public pricing | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| RecycleERPrecycleerp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RecycleERP | 9/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Zeuszeus-software.deSee also Transparency alternatives to Zeus | 9/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.