Transparency alternatives to Hyperproof
Other Compliance automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Hyperproof. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 59 that differ from Hyperproof on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Hyperproof has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Hyperproof” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Hyperproof | Found at Hyperproof, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vantavanta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vanta | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Secureframesecureframe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Secureframe | 83/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Keelkeelgrc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keel | 78/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Whisticwhistic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whistic | 57/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| LogicGatelogicgate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LogicGate | 55/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Trusterotrustero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trustero | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Akitraakitra.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Akitra | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| UpGuardupguard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpGuard | 30/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Cypagocypago.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypago | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Onspringonspring.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onspring | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Scrutscrut.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrut | 26/100 | 2 Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Trustcloudtrustcloud.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Trustcloud | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 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.