Transparency alternatives to Augment Code
Other Coding assistants vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Augment Code. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 15 that differ from Augment Code on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Augment Code has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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 Augment Code” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Augment Code | Found at Augment Code, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factoryfactory.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Factory | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Poolsidepoolside.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Poolside | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Cognitioncognition.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cognition | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Zedzed.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Zed | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Magicmagic.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Magic | 39/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Qodoqodo.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Qodo | 35/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Cursorcursor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cursor | 48/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Kilokilo.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Kilo | 48/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Roomoteroomote.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Roomote | 35/100 | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Unblockedgetunblocked.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Unblocked | 30/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| OpenHandsopenhands.devSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenHands | 22/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Clinecline.botSee also Transparency alternatives to Cline | 13/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 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.