Transparency alternatives to Terramate
Other Developer collaboration and CI vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Terramate. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 54 that differ from Terramate on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Terramate has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Status page with history, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Terramate” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Terramate | Found at Terramate, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CircleCIcircleci.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CircleCI | 61/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| GitHubgithub.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitHub | 57/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| CodeRabbitcoderabbit.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to CodeRabbit | 70/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Warpwarp.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Warp | 61/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Retriumretrium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retrium | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Aviatoraviator.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Aviator | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | Compare |
| Pulumipulumi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pulumi | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | Compare |
| Bitbucket Cloudbitbucket.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Bitbucket Cloud | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | Compare |
| Codercoder.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Coder | 30/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| Mergifymergify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mergify | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | Compare |
| Oktetookteto.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Okteto | 30/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | Compare |
| GitLabgitlab.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitLab | 24/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 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.