Alternatives to Nango
Other Workflow automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Nango does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 27 that differ from Nango on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Nango has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “publishes and Nango does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Nango does not | Nango publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zapierzapier.com | 85/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tray.aitray.ai | 75/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Mergemerge.dev | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tallyfytallyfy.com | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Automation Anywhereautomationanywhere.com | 45/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Celigoceligo.com | 45/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Kissflowkissflow.com | 45/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| n8nn8n.io | 65/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Pipefypipefy.com | 59/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Boomiboomi.com | 52/100 | 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Process Streetprocess.st | 50/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Prismaticprismatic.io | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 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.