SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Jibble

Other Workforce and shift management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Jibble. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 83 that differ from Jibble on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Jibble has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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 Jibble” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at JibbleFound at Jibble, not found there
Timelytimelyapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Timely 65/100 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Agendrixagendrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agendrix 70/100 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 1 No third-party tracking before consent Compare
actiTIMEactitime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to actiTIME 48/100 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
DeskTimedesktime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DeskTime 48/100 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
RotaCloudrotacloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RotaCloud 43/100 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Time Doctortimedoctor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Time Doctor 43/100 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Hubstaffhubstaff.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hubstaff 39/100 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Sonagetsona.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sona 35/100 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 Compare
Clockodoclockodo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clockodo 30/100 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Deputydeputy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deputy 48/100 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) 1 No third-party tracking before consent Compare
TimeCamptimecamp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TimeCamp 48/100 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Tempotempo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Tempo 43/100 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named 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.