Transparency alternatives to GitLab
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at GitLab. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 54 that differ from GitLab on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
GitLab has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at GitLab” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at GitLab | Found at GitLab, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terramateterramate.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Terramate | 74/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeRabbit | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Replitreplit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replit | 76/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CircleCIcircleci.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CircleCI | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Daytonadaytona.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Daytona | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Warpwarp.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Warp | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| GitHubgithub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitHub | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Namespacenamespace.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Namespace | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Retriumretrium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retrium | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Onaona.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ona | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Codacycodacy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Codacy | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Aviatoraviator.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Aviator | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.