Transparency alternatives to Mittwald
Other Cloud hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Mittwald. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Mittwald on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Mittwald has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Mittwald” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Mittwald | Found at Mittwald, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exoscaleexoscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Exoscale | 87/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +5 | nothing | Compare |
| Renderrender.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Render | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Kinstakinsta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kinsta | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| DigitalOceandigitalocean.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DigitalOcean | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Vercelvercel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vercel | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Railwayrailway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Railway | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Aptibleaptible.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aptible | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Scalewayscaleway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scaleway | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Fly.iofly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Fly.io | 39/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| MacStadium Orkamacstadium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MacStadium Orka | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cloudwayscloudways.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudways | 27/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Cloudflarecloudflare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudflare | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | 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.