SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Riskonnect

Other Compliance automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Riskonnect. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 59 that differ from Riskonnect on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Riskonnect has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Riskonnect” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at RiskonnectFound at Riskonnect, not found there
Secureframesecureframe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Secureframe 83/100 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 1 Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Keelkeelgrc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keel 78/100 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 1 Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Vantavanta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vanta 57/100 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 1 Data location stated Compare
LogicGatelogicgate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LogicGate 68/100 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 1 Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Whisticwhistic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whistic 57/100 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change nothing Compare
Optrooptro.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Optro 30/100 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
UpGuardupguard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpGuard 30/100 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Cypagocypago.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypago 26/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Hyperproofhyperproof.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperproof 48/100 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing 1 Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Certacerta.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Certa 43/100 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact 1 Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
ProcessUnityprocessunity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ProcessUnity 39/100 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact 1 Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Trusterotrustero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trustero 35/100 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure 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.