Transparency alternatives to Postman
Other API management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Postman. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Postman on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Postman has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Postman” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Postman | Found at Postman, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redoclyredocly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Redocly | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Moesifmoesif.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Moesif | 65/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Hookdeckhookdeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hookdeck | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Svixsvix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Svix | 65/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Theneotheneo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Theneo | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Apitallyapitally.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Apitally | 35/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Kongkonghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kong | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 5 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Speakeasyspeakeasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Speakeasy | 30/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| SmartBearsmartbear.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SmartBear | 22/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Bump.shbump.shSee also Transparency alternatives to Bump.sh | 48/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| ReadMereadme.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ReadMe | 43/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Apollo GraphQLapollographql.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Apollo GraphQL | 39/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +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.