Transparency alternatives to Omni
Other Business intelligence vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Omni. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 39 that differ from Omni on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Omni has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Omni” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Omni | Found at Omni, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Databoxdatabox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Databox | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Klipfolioklipfolio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Klipfolio | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Steepsteep.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Steep | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ThoughtSpotthoughtspot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ThoughtSpot | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Jettijetti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jetti | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Deepnotedeepnote.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deepnote | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Lookerlooker.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Looker | 35/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Cluviocluvio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cluvio | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Countcount.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Count | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | Compare |
| Metabasemetabase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Metabase | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Sisensesisense.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sisense | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Lightdashlightdash.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lightdash | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 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.