Transparency alternatives to Tray.ai
Other Workflow automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Tray.ai. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Tray.ai on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Tray.ai has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Tray.ai” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Tray.ai | Found at Tray.ai, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tallyfytallyfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tallyfy | 48/100 | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| n8nn8n.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to n8n | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Zapierzapier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zapier | 65/100 | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Mergemerge.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Merge | 61/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Trigger.devtrigger.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Trigger.dev | 61/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Pipedreampipedream.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pipedream | 57/100 | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Boomiboomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boomi | 52/100 | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Process Streetprocess.stSee also Transparency alternatives to Process Street | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Celigoceligo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Celigo | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| IFTTTifttt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IFTTT | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Knitgetknit.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Knit | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Pabblypabbly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pabbly | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +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.