Transparency alternatives to Retrium
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Retrium does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 54 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 “publishes and Retrium does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Retrium does not | Retrium publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terramateterramate.io | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.ai | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Replitreplit.com | 71/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Warpwarp.dev | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| CircleCIcircleci.com | 61/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Daytonadaytona.io | 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.com | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Namespacenamespace.so | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Depotdepot.dev | 35/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Codebergcodeberg.org | 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.com | 52/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Aviatoraviator.co | 35/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 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.