Transparency alternatives to Knit
Other Workflow automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Knit. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Knit on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Knit has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Knit” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Knit | Found at Knit, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tray.aitray.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Tray.ai | 91/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Zapierzapier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zapier | 65/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Trigger.devtrigger.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Trigger.dev | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Boomiboomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boomi | 52/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Pipedreampipedream.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pipedream | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Tallyfytallyfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tallyfy | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Celigoceligo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Celigo | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Nangonango.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Nango | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Composiocomposio.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Composio | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Prismaticprismatic.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Prismatic | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| UiPathuipath.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UiPath | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Workatoworkato.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Workato | 30/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 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.