Transparency alternatives to Stainless
Other API management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Stainless. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Stainless on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Stainless has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Stainless” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Stainless | Found at Stainless, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redoclyredocly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Redocly | 65/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +4 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Moesifmoesif.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Moesif | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | 3 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Svixsvix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Svix | 65/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Hookdeckhookdeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hookdeck | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Postmanpostman.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Postman | 57/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Theneotheneo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Theneo | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 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, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Kongkonghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kong | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ReadMereadme.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ReadMe | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 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, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Hasurahasura.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hasura | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| SmartBearsmartbear.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SmartBear | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.