Transparency alternatives to Polytomic
Other Data integration vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Polytomic. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 48 that differ from Polytomic on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Polytomic has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Polytomic” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Polytomic | Found at Polytomic, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estuaryestuary.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Estuary | 78/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Keboolakeboola.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keboola | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Snowplowsnowplow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snowplow | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Astronomerastronomer.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Astronomer | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Matillionmatillion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Matillion | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Redpandaredpanda.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Redpanda | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Nimblewaynimbleway.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nimbleway | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Prefectprefect.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Prefect | 65/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Hevo Datahevodata.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hevo Data | 52/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Captain Datacaptaindata.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Captain Data | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Riveryrivery.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Rivery | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Striimstriim.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Striim | 41/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | 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.