Transparency alternatives to CircleCI
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at CircleCI. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 54 that differ from CircleCI on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
CircleCI has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at CircleCI” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at CircleCI | Found at CircleCI, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terramateterramate.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Terramate | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeRabbit | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Daytonadaytona.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Daytona | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Replitreplit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replit | 76/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Namespacenamespace.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Namespace | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Warpwarp.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Warp | 61/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Retriumretrium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retrium | 48/100 | 1 Data location stated | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Onaona.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ona | 43/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Codacycodacy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Codacy | 39/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Buddybuddy.worksSee also Transparency alternatives to Buddy | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | Compare |
| E2Be2b.devSee also Transparency alternatives to E2B | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | Compare |
| Codercoder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Coder | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 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.