Transparency alternatives to Fly.io
Other Cloud hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Fly.io. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Fly.io on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Fly.io has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Fly.io” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Fly.io | Found at Fly.io, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exoscaleexoscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Exoscale | 87/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +5 | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Vercelvercel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vercel | 65/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +4 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Renderrender.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Render | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Kinstakinsta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kinsta | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Scalewayscaleway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scaleway | 48/100 | 6 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| DigitalOceandigitalocean.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DigitalOcean | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Cloudflarecloudflare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudflare | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Hetznerhetzner.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hetzner | 48/100 | 5 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Aptibleaptible.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aptible | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Upstashupstash.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Upstash | 35/100 | 4 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 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 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Railwayrailway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Railway | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Subprocessor list | 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.