Transparency alternatives to Mergify
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Mergify. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 53 that differ from Mergify on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Mergify has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, 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 Mergify” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Mergify | Found at Mergify, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terramateterramate.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Terramate | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeRabbit | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | 1 Status page with history | 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 |
| Daytonadaytona.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Daytona | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| CircleCIcircleci.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CircleCI | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Warpwarp.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Warp | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Onaona.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ona | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| GitHubgithub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitHub | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Namespacenamespace.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Namespace | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Retriumretrium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retrium | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Codacycodacy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Codacy | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Depotdepot.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Depot | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, 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.