Transparency alternatives to Daytona
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Daytona. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 53 that differ from Daytona on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Daytona has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Daytona” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Daytona | Found at Daytona, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CircleCIcircleci.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CircleCI | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Warpwarp.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Warp | 74/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| GitHubgithub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitHub | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Terramateterramate.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Terramate | 74/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeRabbit | 70/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Retriumretrium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retrium | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Onaona.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ona | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Depotdepot.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Depot | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Aviatoraviator.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Aviator | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Bitbucket Cloudbitbucket.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Bitbucket Cloud | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Codebergcodeberg.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Codeberg | 22/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Replitreplit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replit | 76/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 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.