Transparency alternatives to AccelByte Gaming Services
Other Cloud hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at AccelByte Gaming Services. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from AccelByte Gaming Services on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
AccelByte Gaming Services has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at AccelByte Gaming Services” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at AccelByte Gaming Services | Found at AccelByte Gaming Services, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exoscaleexoscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Exoscale | 87/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| Kinstakinsta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kinsta | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Vercelvercel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vercel | 65/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Renderrender.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Render | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| DigitalOceandigitalocean.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DigitalOcean | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Aptibleaptible.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aptible | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Cloudflarecloudflare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudflare | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Fly.iofly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Fly.io | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Scalewayscaleway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scaleway | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| WP Enginewpengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WP Engine | 35/100 | 4 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Railwayrailway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Railway | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Hetznerhetzner.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hetzner | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Public pricing | 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.