Transparency alternatives to Nango
Other Workflow automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Nango. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Nango on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Nango has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Nango” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Nango | Found at Nango, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tray.aitray.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Tray.ai | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Zapierzapier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zapier | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Mergemerge.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Merge | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pipedreampipedream.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pipedream | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Automation Anywhereautomationanywhere.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automation Anywhere | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Kissflowkissflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kissflow | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Celigoceligo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Celigo | 43/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Trigger.devtrigger.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Trigger.dev | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Boomiboomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boomi | 52/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Process Streetprocess.stSee also Transparency alternatives to Process Street | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tallyfytallyfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tallyfy | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| n8nn8n.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to n8n | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Subprocessor list | 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.