Transparency alternatives to PortSwigger
Other API security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at PortSwigger. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 20 that differ from PortSwigger on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
PortSwigger has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, 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 PortSwigger” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at PortSwigger | Found at PortSwigger, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| APIsecapisec.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to APIsec | 61/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Salt Securitysalt.securitySee also Transparency alternatives to Salt Security | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Cequencecequence.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Cequence | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | Compare |
| Pyntpynt.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pynt | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | Compare |
| FireTailfiretail.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to FireTail | 26/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Beagle Securitybeaglesecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Beagle Security | 22/100 | 2 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | Compare |
| Approovapproov.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Approov | 13/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Data Theoremdatatheorem.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Data Theorem | 13/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Impart Securityimpart.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Impart Security | 13/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Levo.ailevo.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Levo.ai | 22/100 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| ThreatXthreatx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ThreatX | 22/100 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| 42Crunch42crunch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 42Crunch | 17/100 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 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.