Transparency alternatives to Monoscope (formerly APIToolkit)
Other API management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Monoscope (formerly APIToolkit). This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Monoscope (formerly APIToolkit) on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Monoscope (formerly APIToolkit) has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Monoscope (formerly APIToolkit)” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Monoscope (formerly APIToolkit) | Found at Monoscope (formerly APIToolkit), not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redoclyredocly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Redocly | 65/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +4 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Moesifmoesif.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Moesif | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Svixsvix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Svix | 65/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Hookdeckhookdeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hookdeck | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Postmanpostman.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Postman | 57/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Theneotheneo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Theneo | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Traefiktraefik.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Traefik | 35/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Speakeasyspeakeasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Speakeasy | 30/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Bump.shbump.shSee also Transparency alternatives to Bump.sh | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Apollo GraphQLapollographql.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Apollo GraphQL | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Apitallyapitally.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Apitally | 35/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Hasurahasura.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hasura | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 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.