Transparency alternatives to Timely
Other Workforce and shift management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Timely. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 83 that differ from Timely on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Timely has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Timely” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Timely | Found at Timely, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deputydeputy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deputy | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Jibblejibble.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Jibble | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Hubstaffhubstaff.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hubstaff | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | Compare |
| RescueTimerescuetime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RescueTime | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | Compare |
| Kimaikimai.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Kimai | 30/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | Compare |
| MOCOmocoapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MOCO | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | Compare |
| Agendrixagendrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agendrix | 70/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Tempotempo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Tempo | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| 7shifts7shifts.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 7shifts | 39/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Beebolebeebole.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Beebole | 39/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Papershiftpapershift.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Papershift | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Rotageekrotageek.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rotageek | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 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.