Transparency alternatives to Second Front Game Warden
Other Cloud hosting vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Second Front Game Warden. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Second Front Game Warden on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Second Front Game Warden has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, 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 Second Front Game Warden” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Second Front Game Warden | Found at Second Front Game Warden, 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 |
| Kinstakinsta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kinsta | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Renderrender.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Render | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | 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 |
| Cloudflarecloudflare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cloudflare | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Railwayrailway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Railway | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Fly.iofly.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Fly.io | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Scalewayscaleway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scaleway | 48/100 | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Aptibleaptible.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aptible | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Hetznerhetzner.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hetzner | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| WP Enginewpengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WP Engine | 35/100 | 4 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 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.