Transparency alternatives to Kimchi
Other Feature flags and experimentation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Kimchi. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 27 that differ from Kimchi on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Kimchi 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 Kimchi” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Kimchi | Found at Kimchi, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VWOvwo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to VWO | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| LaunchDarklylaunchdarkly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LaunchDarkly | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Statsigstatsig.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Statsig | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Unleashgetunleash.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Unleash | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| GrowthBookgrowthbook.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to GrowthBook | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Harnessharness.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Harness | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Flagsmithflagsmith.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Flagsmith | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Splitsplit.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Split | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| CloudBeescloudbees.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CloudBees | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Reflagreflag.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reflag | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list | nothing | Compare |
| Midamida.soSee also Transparency alternatives to Mida | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Optimizelyoptimizely.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Optimizely | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 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.