Transparency alternatives to Docker Scout
Other Container and cloud workload security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Docker Scout. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from Docker Scout on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Docker Scout has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Docker Scout” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Docker Scout | Found at Docker Scout, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upwindupwind.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Upwind | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 5 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Zestyzesty.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Zesty | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tigeratigera.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Tigera | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Endor Labsendorlabs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Endor Labs | 39/100 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Socketsocket.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Socket | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Armoarmosec.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Armo | 9/100 | 1 Status page with history | 6 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Sedaisedai.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sedai | 35/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Chainguardchainguard.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Chainguard | 30/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Spectro Cloudspectrocloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Spectro Cloud | 30/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Anchoreanchore.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anchore | 26/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| vClustervcluster.comSee also Transparency alternatives to vCluster | 26/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cast AIcast.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Cast AI | 22/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +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.