Transparency alternatives to Zapier
Other Workflow automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Zapier. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Zapier on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Zapier has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Zapier” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Zapier | Found at Zapier, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tray.aitray.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Tray.ai | 70/100 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Pipedreampipedream.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pipedream | 57/100 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Process Streetprocess.stSee also Transparency alternatives to Process Street | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Celigoceligo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Celigo | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| n8nn8n.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to n8n | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| IFTTTifttt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to IFTTT | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Prismaticprismatic.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Prismatic | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| UiPathuipath.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UiPath | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Mergemerge.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Merge | 61/100 | 1 Data location stated | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Trigger.devtrigger.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Trigger.dev | 61/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Automation Anywhereautomationanywhere.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automation Anywhere | 52/100 | 1 Data location stated | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Boomiboomi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Boomi | 52/100 | 1 Status page with history | 2 Data processing agreement, 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.