SaaS Ranking
Menu

Ona: what they publish

ona.com · Developer collaboration and CI · checked 2026-10-27

43/100DBand D

Rank 11 of 54 in Developer collaboration and CI, where the median is 23.5.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-27. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

3 days since the newest dated result, 3 since the oldest. 12 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

Ona

ona.com · Developer collaboration and CI

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
D 43of 100 Rank 11 of 54

Published commitments4 of 9 found

Measured behaviour1 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-27. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that Ona has no such document.

Where Ona sits in Developer collaboration and CI

  1. A0 0%
  2. B4 7%
  3. C3 6%
  4. D4 7%
  5. E15 28%
  6. F28 52%
54 vendors with a score; 5 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of Ona is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What Ona states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

No data processing agreement found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-27.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://ona.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://ona.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://ona.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://ona.com/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://ona.com/legal/data-processing-addendum – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://ona.com/legal/gdpr – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://ona.com/trust/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://ona.com/privacy/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Developer collaboration and CI: 7 of 54 companies

✗

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

No public status page found.

Checked 3 addresses on 2026-10-27.

Show the 3 addresses we checked
  1. https://status.ona.com/ – The name "status.ona.com" could not be resolved.
  2. https://ona.com/status – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://ona.com.statuspage.io/ – Could not be fetched: fetch failed.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Status page with history in Developer collaboration and CI: 9 of 56 companies

✗

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

No public pricing with figures found.

Checked 5 addresses on 2026-10-27.

Show the 5 addresses we checked
  1. https://ona.com/pricing – reached and rendered, no match
  2. https://ona.com/pricing/ – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://ona.com/plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://ona.com/en/pricing – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://ona.com/pricing-plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Public pricing in Developer collaboration and CI: 40 of 55 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

  • Third-party hosts we saw on the first load 7 google-analytics.com, googlesyndication.com, googletagmanager.com, licdn.com, linkedin.com, litix.io, mux.com.
    Show the 7 exact wordings

    region1.google-analytics.com

    Read at https://ona.com/

    pagead2.googlesyndication.com

    Read at https://ona.com/

    www.googletagmanager.com

    Read at https://ona.com/

    snap.licdn.com

    Read at https://ona.com/

    px.ads.linkedin.com

    Read at https://ona.com/

    79kn3idpt5ddet7ga4rdfo7it.litix.io

    Read at https://ona.com/

    chunk-oci-us-ashburn-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, chunk-oci-us-phoenix-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, manifest-oci-us-ashburn-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, manifest-oci-us-phoenix-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, stream.mux.com

    Read at https://ona.com/

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-27.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://ona.com/ – third-party requests before any interaction: 79kn3idpt5ddet7ga4rdfo7it.litix.io, chunk-oci-us-ashburn-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, chunk-oci-us-phoenix-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, manifest-oci-us-ashburn-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, manifest-oci-us-phoenix-1-vop1.edgemv.mux.com, pagead2.googlesyndication.com, px.ads.linkedin.com, region1.google-analytics.com, snap.licdn.com, stream.mux.com, www.googletagmanager.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Developer collaboration and CI: 3 of 59 companies

✗

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

No commitment to give notice before subprocessors change found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-27.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://ona.com/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://ona.com/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://ona.com/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://ona.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://ona.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://ona.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://ona.com/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://ona.com/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Developer collaboration and CI: 9 of 56 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-27.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://ona.com/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://ona.com/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://ona.com/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://ona.com/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://ona.com/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://ona.com/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Developer collaboration and CI: 4 of 54 companies

✗

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

No security.txt found.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-27.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://ona.com/.well-known/security.txt – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Developer collaboration and CI: 12 of 56 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 5
✓

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

The actual list is published, not just a promise to keep one.

Source: https://ona.com/legal/sub-processors · checked 2026-10-27

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Developer collaboration and CI: 8 of 53 companies

✓

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

The hosting location is stated on a public page.

  • Locations named next to the hosting wording European Union, United States, Virginia. This does not establish the company’s headquarters.
    Show the 3 exact wordings

    Customer.io provides Data Residency in the EU.

    Read at https://ona.com/legal/privacy-policy

    he corresponding files about the use of this website are generally transmitted and stored in Google server in the USA.

    Read at https://ona.com/legal/privacy-policy

    management purposes, certain metadata and interactions are transmitted to the Ona management plane, hosted in AWS us east 1 (N. Virginia).

    Read at https://ona.com/legal/privacy-policy

Source: https://ona.com/legal/privacy-policy · checked 2026-10-27

Across the market: Data location stated in Developer collaboration and CI: 20 of 55 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

  • HSTS max-age 63072000 seconds (730 days).
    Show the exact wording

    max-age=63072000

    Read at https://ona.com/

Source: https://ona.com/ · checked 2026-10-27

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Developer collaboration and CI: 47 of 59 companies

✓

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

SOC 2 or ISO 27001 named on a public page.

  • Named on that page SOC 2 (unclear from the sentence).
    Show the exact wording

    Compliance GDPR SOC 2 EU AI Act Used by security focused companies Blackstone BNY Hargreaves Lansdown Kingland Vanta Pear

    Read at https://trust.ona.com/

Source: https://trust.ona.com/ · checked 2026-10-27

Across the market: Certifications named in Developer collaboration and CI: 25 of 57 companies

✓

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

A data protection officer or a dedicated privacy address is named.

Source: https://ona.com/legal/privacy-policy · checked 2026-10-27

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Developer collaboration and CI: 11 of 56 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-21: 43 of 1002026-10-27: 43 of 100 2026-10-21 2026-10-27
Score over the last 2 runs we measured Ona in: 43 (2026-10-21), 43 (2026-10-27).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

Ona

5 found · 7 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-27.

Investigate 7 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Status page with history

    Where can we review incident history for the service we will use, and how do we subscribe to incident updates?

    Inspect this check
  3. Public pricing

    Please confirm the total cost for our seats and usage, including minimum commitments, add-ons, overages and renewal terms.

    Inspect this check
  4. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  5. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  6. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check
  7. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.