Transparency alternatives to Microlink
Other Browser automation and web data vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Microlink. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from Microlink on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Microlink has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Microlink” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Microlink | Found at Microlink, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Browser Usebrowser-use.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Browser Use | 52/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Firecrawlfirecrawl.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Firecrawl | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Browserlessbrowserless.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Browserless | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Hyperbrowserhyperbrowser.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperbrowser | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Zytezyte.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zyte | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Oxylabsoxylabs.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Oxylabs | 17/100 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Scrapingdogscrapingdog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrapingdog | 52/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Scrapflyscrapfly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrapfly | 43/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| ScrapingAntscrapingant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingAnt | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| ScrapingBeescrapingbee.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ScrapingBee | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Steelsteel.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Steel | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Urlboxurlbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Urlbox | 26/100 | 1 Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, 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.