SaaS Ranking
Menu

Builder.io: what they publish

builder.io · Content management systems · checked 2026-10-16

23/100FBand F

Rank 22 of 41 in Content management systems, where the median is 26.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-16. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

1 day since the newest dated result, 1 since the oldest. 11 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

Builder.io

builder.io · Content management systems

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
F 23of 100 Rank 22 of 41

Published commitments3 of 9 found

Measured behaviour0 of 2 found, 1 not measured

Checked 2026-10-16. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that Builder.io has no such document.

Where Builder.io sits in Content management systems

  1. A0 0%
  2. B2 5%
  3. C1 2%
  4. D4 10%
  5. E14 34%
  6. F20 49%
41 vendors with a score; 4 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of Builder.io is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What Builder.io states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

No data processing agreement found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://builder.io/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://builder.io/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://builder.io/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://builder.io/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://builder.io/legal/data-processing-addendum – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://builder.io/legal/gdpr – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  7. https://builder.io/trust/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  8. https://builder.io/privacy/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Content management systems: 5 of 42 companies

✗

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

No subprocessor list found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://builder.io/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://builder.io/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://builder.io/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://builder.io/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://builder.io/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://builder.io/privacy/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  7. https://builder.io/legal/subprocessor-list – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Content management systems: 4 of 42 companies

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

No statement about data location found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://builder.io/security – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://builder.io/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://builder.io/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://builder.io/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://builder.io/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://builder.io/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  7. https://builder.io/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Content management systems: 17 of 42 companies

✗

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

No enforced HTTPS with HSTS found.

Checked 2 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 2 addresses we checked
  1. http://builder.io/ – redirects to https://builder.io/
  2. https://builder.io/ – no HSTS header

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Content management systems: 27 of 45 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-16.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://builder.io/ – third-party requests before any interaction: api.amplitude.com, app.launchdarkly.com, cdn.cookielaw.org, cdn.jsdelivr.net, clientstream.launchdarkly.com, events.launchdarkly.com, fonts.googleapis.com, fonts.gstatic.com, geolocation.onetrust.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Content management systems: 3 of 45 companies

✗

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

No commitment to give notice before subprocessors change found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://builder.io/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://builder.io/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://builder.io/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://builder.io/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://builder.io/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://builder.io/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://builder.io/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://builder.io/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Content management systems: 6 of 41 companies

✗

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

No named certification found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://builder.io/security – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://builder.io/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://builder.io/trust-center – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://builder.io/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://builder.io/legal/security – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://trust.builder.io/ – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Certifications named in Content management systems: 16 of 44 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://builder.io/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://builder.io/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://builder.io/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://builder.io/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://builder.io/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://builder.io/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Content management systems: 1 of 41 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 3
✓

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

A public status page with incident history.

Source: https://status.builder.io/ · checked 2026-10-16

Across the market: Status page with history in Content management systems: 11 of 43 companies

✓

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

Actual numbers on a public page.

Source: https://www.builder.io/pricing?_host=www.builder.io · checked 2026-10-16

Across the market: Public pricing in Content management systems: 19 of 42 companies

✓

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

A data protection officer or a dedicated privacy address is named.

Source: https://www.builder.io/legal/privacy · checked 2026-10-16

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Content management systems: 18 of 41 companies

Not measured by us 1
–

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s server blocked or rate-limited our crawler, so this was not measured.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://builder.io/.well-known/security.txt – blocked or unavailable (HTTP 403)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Content management systems: 10 of 38 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-09: 23 of 1002026-10-16: 23 of 100 2026-10-09 2026-10-16
Score over the last 2 runs we measured Builder.io in: 23 (2026-10-09), 23 (2026-10-16).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

Builder.io

3 found · 8 not found · 1 not measured across 12 public checks.

11 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-16.

Investigate 9 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Subprocessor list

    Which subprocessors apply to our product, what does each process, and in which countries? Please share the current list.

    Inspect this check
  3. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  4. Certifications named

    Please share the current certificate or audit report and its scope, covered legal entity, products and validity period.

    Inspect this check
  5. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  6. HTTPS enforced with HSTS

    How is HTTPS enforced on the product and sign-in domains we will use? Please distinguish those domains from the public website.

    Inspect this check
  7. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  8. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check
  9. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.