Transparency alternatives to Celigo
Other Workflow automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Celigo. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Celigo on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Celigo has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Celigo” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Celigo | Found at Celigo, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trigger.devtrigger.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Trigger.dev | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Tray.aitray.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Tray.ai | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Zapierzapier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zapier | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Pipedreampipedream.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pipedream | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Mergemerge.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Merge | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Tallyfytallyfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tallyfy | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| n8nn8n.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to n8n | 43/100 | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Nangonango.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Nango | 30/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Automation Anywhereautomationanywhere.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automation Anywhere | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Boomiboomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boomi | 52/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Kissflowkissflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kissflow | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Pipefypipefy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pipefy | 41/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +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.