Transparency alternatives to GoodData
Other Business intelligence vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at GoodData. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 39 that differ from GoodData on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
GoodData has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at GoodData” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at GoodData | Found at GoodData, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Databoxdatabox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Databox | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Cluviocluvio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cluvio | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Countcount.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Count | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Klipfolioklipfolio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Klipfolio | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Metabasemetabase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Metabase | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Steepsteep.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Steep | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Lightdashlightdash.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lightdash | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| ancoreShareancoresoft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ancoreShare | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Lookerlooker.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Looker | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Presetpreset.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Preset | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Omniomni.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Omni | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Growgrow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Grow | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 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.