Transparency alternatives to Retrium
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Retrium. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 53 that differ from Retrium on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Retrium has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Retrium” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Retrium | Found at Retrium, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terramateterramate.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Terramate | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeRabbit | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Replitreplit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replit | 76/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| CircleCIcircleci.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CircleCI | 61/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Daytonadaytona.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Daytona | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| GitHubgithub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitHub | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Depotdepot.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Depot | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Warpwarp.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Warp | 74/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list | nothing | Compare |
| Namespacenamespace.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Namespace | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Coolify Cloudcoolify.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Coolify Cloud | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Codebergcodeberg.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Codeberg | 22/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Onaona.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ona | 43/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 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.