Transparency alternatives to Ciqualia
Other Compliance automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ciqualia. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 57 that differ from Ciqualia on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ciqualia has 10 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, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Ciqualia” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ciqualia | Found at Ciqualia, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secureframesecureframe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Secureframe | 83/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Keelkeelgrc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keel | 78/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Vantavanta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vanta | 57/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| LogicGatelogicgate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LogicGate | 68/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Whisticwhistic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whistic | 57/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| UpGuardupguard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpGuard | 39/100 | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Hyperproofhyperproof.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperproof | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Certacerta.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Certa | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ProcessUnityprocessunity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ProcessUnity | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Optrooptro.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Optro | 30/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Cypagocypago.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypago | 26/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Trusterotrustero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trustero | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.