Transparency alternatives to Aviator
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Aviator. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 54 that differ from Aviator on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Aviator has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Aviator” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Aviator | Found at Aviator, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeRabbit | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +4 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Terramateterramate.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Terramate | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Daytonadaytona.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Daytona | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Replitreplit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replit | 76/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| CircleCIcircleci.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CircleCI | 61/100 | 4 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Namespacenamespace.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Namespace | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Warpwarp.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Warp | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| GitHubgithub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitHub | 57/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Retriumretrium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retrium | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Onaona.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ona | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Codacycodacy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Codacy | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Codercoder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Coder | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing | 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.