Transparency alternatives to Syncro
Other Endpoint management and security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Syncro. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Syncro on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Syncro has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, 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 Syncro” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Syncro | Found at Syncro, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Addigyaddigy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Addigy | 87/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| Malwarebytesmalwarebytes.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Malwarebytes | 83/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Hexnodehexnode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hexnode | 62/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| SentinelOnesentinelone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SentinelOne | 48/100 | 5 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Levellevel.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Level | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| NinjaOneninjaone.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NinjaOne | 52/100 | 4 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Automoxautomox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Automox | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Action1action1.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Action1 | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Kaseyakaseya.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kaseya | 39/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Esperesper.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Esper | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Scalefusionscalefusion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scalefusion | 43/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Jamfjamf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jamf | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | 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.