Transparency alternatives to Swif
Other Endpoint management and security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Swif. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Swif on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Swif has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Swif” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Swif | Found at Swif, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Addigyaddigy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Addigy | 87/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Malwarebytesmalwarebytes.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Malwarebytes | 83/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Hexnodehexnode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hexnode | 62/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| SentinelOnesentinelone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SentinelOne | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Levellevel.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Level | 61/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Esperesper.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Esper | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| NinjaOneninjaone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NinjaOne | 52/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Automoxautomox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automox | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Action1action1.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Action1 | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Kaseyakaseya.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kaseya | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| PDQ Connectpdq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PDQ Connect | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Scalefusionscalefusion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scalefusion | 43/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 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.