Transparency alternatives to PingCAP TiDB Cloud
Other Data warehouses and databases vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that PingCAP TiDB Cloud does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from PingCAP TiDB Cloud on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
PingCAP TiDB Cloud has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “publishes and PingCAP TiDB Cloud does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and PingCAP TiDB Cloud does not | PingCAP TiDB Cloud publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aivenaiven.io | 78/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Supabasesupabase.com | 78/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| SurrealDBsurrealdb.com | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Neonneon.tech | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Tiger Datatigerdata.com | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Databricksdatabricks.com | 57/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| PlanetScaleplanetscale.com | 43/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Weaviateweaviate.io | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Redisredis.io | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Snowflakesnowflake.com | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| MongoDB Atlasmongodb.com | 50/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Prismaprisma.io | 39/100 | 4 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data location stated, 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.