Transparency alternatives to Netlify
Other Cloud hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Netlify. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from Netlify on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Netlify has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Netlify” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Netlify | Found at Netlify, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exoscaleexoscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Exoscale | 87/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Kinstakinsta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kinsta | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Renderrender.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Render | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| DigitalOceandigitalocean.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DigitalOcean | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Vercelvercel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vercel | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Cloudflarecloudflare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudflare | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Fly.iofly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Fly.io | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Railwayrailway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Railway | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Hetznerhetzner.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hetzner | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Scalewayscaleway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scaleway | 48/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| WP Enginewpengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WP Engine | 35/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Aptibleaptible.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aptible | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 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.