Transparency alternatives to PDQ Connect
Other Endpoint management and security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at PDQ Connect. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from PDQ Connect on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
PDQ Connect has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at PDQ Connect” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at PDQ Connect | Found at PDQ Connect, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Addigyaddigy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Addigy | 87/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Malwarebytesmalwarebytes.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Malwarebytes | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Hexnodehexnode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hexnode | 62/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Levellevel.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Level | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Esperesper.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Esper | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Automoxautomox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automox | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Action1action1.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Action1 | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Kaseyakaseya.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kaseya | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| NinjaOneninjaone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NinjaOne | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | nothing | Compare |
| SentinelOnesentinelone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SentinelOne | 48/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Scalefusionscalefusion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scalefusion | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Fleetfleetdm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fleet | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Status page with history, 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.