Transparency alternatives to Whistic
Other Compliance automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Whistic. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 59 that differ from Whistic on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Whistic has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Whistic” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Whistic | Found at Whistic, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secureframesecureframe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Secureframe | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Keelkeelgrc.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keel | 78/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Vantavanta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vanta | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| LogicGatelogicgate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LogicGate | 68/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| UpGuardupguard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpGuard | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, 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 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| ProcessUnityprocessunity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ProcessUnity | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Trusterotrustero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trustero | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Akitraakitra.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Akitra | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Conveyorconveyor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Conveyor | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Optrooptro.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Optro | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Onspringonspring.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onspring | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 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.