Transparency alternatives to Trigger.dev
Other Workflow automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Trigger.dev. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Trigger.dev on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Trigger.dev has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Trigger.dev” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Trigger.dev | Found at Trigger.dev, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tray.aitray.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Tray.ai | 91/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Celigoceligo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Celigo | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Boomiboomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boomi | 52/100 | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Pipedreampipedream.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pipedream | 52/100 | 3 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Process Streetprocess.stSee also Transparency alternatives to Process Street | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Paragonuseparagon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Paragon | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Zapierzapier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zapier | 65/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Mergemerge.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Merge | 61/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Automation Anywhereautomationanywhere.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automation Anywhere | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Kissflowkissflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kissflow | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Knitgetknit.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Knit | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tallyfytallyfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tallyfy | 48/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.