Transparency alternatives to Y42
Other Data integration vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Y42. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Y42 on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Y42 has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Y42” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Y42 | Found at Y42, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prefectprefect.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Prefect | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Matillionmatillion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Matillion | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Estuaryestuary.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Estuary | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Weldweld.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Weld | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Astronomerastronomer.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Astronomer | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Snowplowsnowplow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snowplow | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Hevo Datahevodata.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hevo Data | 52/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| Keboolakeboola.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keboola | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| RudderStackrudderstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RudderStack | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| MigrationWizbittitan.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MigrationWiz | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Riveryrivery.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Rivery | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Striimstriim.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Striim | 41/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 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.