Transparency alternatives to Neon
Other Data warehouses and databases vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Neon. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 41 that differ from Neon on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Neon has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Neon” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Neon | Found at Neon, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aivenaiven.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Aiven | 78/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Supabasesupabase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Supabase | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Dremiodremio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dremio | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| SurrealDBsurrealdb.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SurrealDB | 65/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Prismaprisma.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Prisma | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | Compare |
| Tiger Datatigerdata.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tiger Data | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Snowflakesnowflake.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Snowflake | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Weaviateweaviate.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Weaviate | 61/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| InfluxDatainfluxdata.comSee also Transparency alternatives to InfluxData | 57/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Redisredis.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Redis | 52/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Tinybirdtinybird.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Tinybird | 52/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| MongoDB Atlasmongodb.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MongoDB Atlas | 50/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.