Transparency alternatives to Cockpit
Other Content management systems vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Cockpit. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Cockpit on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Cockpit has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Cockpit” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Cockpit | Found at Cockpit, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanitysanity.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sanity | 78/100 | 9 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +6 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Storyblokstoryblok.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Storyblok | 74/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Directusdirectus.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Directus | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Contentstackcontentstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contentstack | 57/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Pantheonpantheon.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pantheon | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Uniformuniform.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Uniform | 43/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| CloudCannoncloudcannon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudCannon | 35/100 | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Craft CMScraftcms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Craft CMS | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Shorthandshorthand.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Shorthand | 39/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Strapistrapi.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Strapi | 39/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ButterCMSbuttercms.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ButterCMS | 30/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Kontent.aikontent.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Kontent.ai | 26/100 | 4 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.