Transparency alternatives to Secureframe
Other Compliance automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Secureframe. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 59 that differ from Secureframe on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Secureframe has 3 gaps in what we could measure: Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Secureframe” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Secureframe | Found at Secureframe, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vantavanta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vanta | 57/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Whisticwhistic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whistic | 57/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Keelkeelgrc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keel | 78/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| UpGuardupguard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpGuard | 39/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | Compare |
| AIDXaidxtech.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AIDX | 17/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | Compare |
| Ciqualiaciqualia.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ciqualia | 17/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | Compare |
| Archerarcherirm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Archer | 13/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | Compare |
| LogicGatelogicgate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LogicGate | 68/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Hyperproofhyperproof.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperproof | 48/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Certacerta.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Certa | 43/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| ProcessUnityprocessunity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ProcessUnity | 39/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Trusterotrustero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trustero | 35/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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.