Transparency alternatives to Speakeasy
Other API management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Speakeasy. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Speakeasy on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Speakeasy has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Speakeasy” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Speakeasy | Found at Speakeasy, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redoclyredocly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Redocly | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Moesifmoesif.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Moesif | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Svixsvix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Svix | 65/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Hookdeckhookdeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hookdeck | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Postmanpostman.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Postman | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Theneotheneo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Theneo | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Bump.shbump.shSee also Transparency alternatives to Bump.sh | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Fernbuildwithfern.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fern | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ReadMereadme.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ReadMe | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Apollo GraphQLapollographql.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Apollo GraphQL | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Kongkonghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kong | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Graviteegravitee.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Gravitee | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 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.