Transparency alternatives to Hasura
Other API management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Hasura. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Hasura on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Hasura has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, 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 Hasura” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Hasura | Found at Hasura, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redoclyredocly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Redocly | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Moesifmoesif.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Moesif | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Svixsvix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Svix | 65/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Postmanpostman.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Postman | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Hookdeckhookdeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hookdeck | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Theneotheneo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Theneo | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| ReadMereadme.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ReadMe | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | Compare |
| Apitallyapitally.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Apitally | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Kongkonghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kong | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Stainlessstainless.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stainless | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Traefiktraefik.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Traefik | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Speakeasyspeakeasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Speakeasy | 30/100 | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 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.