Transparency alternatives to Jetti
Other Business intelligence vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Jetti. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 39 that differ from Jetti on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Jetti has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Jetti” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Jetti | Found at Jetti, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Databoxdatabox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Databox | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Klipfolioklipfolio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Klipfolio | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Sisensesisense.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sisense | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Steepsteep.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Steep | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Modemode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mode | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Cluviocluvio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cluvio | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Countcount.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Count | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ThoughtSpotthoughtspot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ThoughtSpot | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Lightdashlightdash.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lightdash | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ancoreShareancoresoft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ancoreShare | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Lookerlooker.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Looker | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Omniomni.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Omni | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.