Transparency alternatives to Stratodesk NoTouch Cloud
Other Endpoint management and security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Stratodesk NoTouch Cloud. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 36 that differ from Stratodesk NoTouch Cloud on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Stratodesk NoTouch Cloud has 12 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Stratodesk NoTouch Cloud” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Stratodesk NoTouch Cloud | Found at Stratodesk NoTouch Cloud, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Addigyaddigy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Addigy | 87/100 | 10 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +7 | nothing | Compare |
| Malwarebytesmalwarebytes.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Malwarebytes | 83/100 | 9 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +6 | nothing | Compare |
| NinjaOneninjaone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NinjaOne | 52/100 | 7 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| SentinelOnesentinelone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SentinelOne | 48/100 | 7 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| Hexnodehexnode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hexnode | 62/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Esperesper.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Esper | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Fleetfleetdm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fleet | 48/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Levellevel.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Level | 48/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Automoxautomox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automox | 43/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Scalefusionscalefusion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scalefusion | 43/100 | 6 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Jamfjamf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jamf | 35/100 | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| CrowdStrikecrowdstrike.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CrowdStrike | 30/100 | 5 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | 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.