Transparency alternatives to Cognition
Other Coding assistants vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Cognition. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 15 that differ from Cognition on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Cognition has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Cognition” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Cognition | Found at Cognition, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cursorcursor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cursor | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Kilokilo.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Kilo | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Factoryfactory.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Factory | 74/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| Augment Codeaugmentcode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Augment Code | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Zedzed.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Zed | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Magicmagic.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Magic | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Qodoqodo.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Qodo | 35/100 | 3 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Poolsidepoolside.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Poolside | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Unblockedgetunblocked.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Unblocked | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| OpenHandsopenhands.devSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenHands | 22/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Roomoteroomote.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Roomote | 35/100 | 1 Status page with history | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| CodeGPTcodegpt.coSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeGPT | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +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.