Transparency alternatives to Contentsquare
Other Web analytics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Contentsquare. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Contentsquare on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Contentsquare has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Contentsquare” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Contentsquare | Found at Contentsquare, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plausibleplausible.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Plausible | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +4 | Compare |
| PostHogposthog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PostHog | 78/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Amplitudeamplitude.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Amplitude | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Swetrixswetrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Swetrix | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Matomomatomo.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Matomo | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Mouseflowmouseflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mouseflow | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| TelemetryDecktelemetrydeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TelemetryDeck | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Pirschpirsch.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pirsch | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | Compare |
| Mixpanelmixpanel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixpanel | 78/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| FullStoryfullstory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FullStory | 57/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Rybbitrybbit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rybbit | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Fathom Analyticsusefathom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fathom Analytics | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 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.