SaaS Ranking
Menu

Split: what they publish

split.io · Feature flags and experimentation · checked 2026-10-15

35/100EBand E

Rank 13 of 29 in Feature flags and experimentation, where the median is 30.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-15. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

3 days since the newest dated result, 3 since the oldest. 12 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

Split

split.io · Feature flags and experimentation

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
E 35of 100 Rank 13 of 29

Published commitments4 of 9 found

Measured behaviour1 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-15. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that Split has no such document.

Where Split sits in Feature flags and experimentation

  1. A0 0%
  2. B1 3%
  3. C3 10%
  4. D3 10%
  5. E12 41%
  6. F10 34%
29 vendors with a score; 1 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of Split is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What Split states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://trust.harness.io/?utm_campaign=fme&utm_source=split_io&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=wildcard · checked 2026-10-15

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://split.io/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://split.io/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://split.io/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://split.io/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://split.io/legal/data-processing-addendum – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://split.io/legal/gdpr – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  7. https://split.io/trust/dpa – found, but behind a sign-in
  8. https://split.io/privacy/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Feature flags and experimentation: 4 of 29 companies

✗

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://trust.harness.io/?utm_campaign=fme&utm_source=split_io&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=wildcard · checked 2026-10-15

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://split.io/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://split.io/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://split.io/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://split.io/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://split.io/trust/subprocessors – found, but behind a sign-in
  6. https://split.io/privacy/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://split.io/legal/subprocessor-list – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Feature flags and experimentation: 5 of 29 companies

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://trust.harness.io/?utm_campaign=fme&utm_source=split_io&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=individual · checked 2026-10-15

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://split.io/security – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://split.io/trust – found, but behind a sign-in
  3. https://split.io/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://split.io/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://split.io/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://split.io/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://split.io/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Feature flags and experimentation: 9 of 29 companies

✗

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

No public pricing with figures found.

Checked 5 addresses on 2026-10-15.

Show the 5 addresses we checked
  1. https://split.io/pricing – reached and rendered, no match
  2. https://split.io/pricing/ – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://split.io/plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://split.io/en/pricing – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://split.io/pricing-plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Public pricing in Feature flags and experimentation: 18 of 29 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-15.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://split.io/ – third-party requests before any interaction: 053-jny-225.mktoresp.com, ad.doubleclick.net, ajax.googleapis.com, analytics.twitter.com, app.clearbit.com, bat.bing.com, bat.bing.net, cdn.prod.website-files.com, consent.app.relyance.ai, d3e54v103j8qbb.cloudfront.net, f.clarity.ms, fonts.googleapis.com, fonts.gstatic.com, js.zi-scripts.com, munchkin.marketo.net, px.ads.linkedin.com, region1.analytics.google.com, scripts.clarity.ms, snap.licdn.com, static.ads-twitter.com, stats.g.doubleclick.net, t.co, tag.clearbitscripts.com, www.clarity.ms, www.google.com, www.google.de, www.googleadservices.com, www.googletagmanager.com, www.gstatic.com, x.clearbitjs.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Feature flags and experimentation: 1 of 29 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://trust.harness.io/?utm_campaign=fme&utm_source=split_io&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=wildcard · checked 2026-10-15

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://split.io/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://split.io/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://split.io/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://split.io/trust/sla – found, but behind a sign-in
  5. https://split.io/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://split.io/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Feature flags and experimentation: 5 of 29 companies

✗

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

No security.txt found.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-15.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://split.io/.well-known/security.txt – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Feature flags and experimentation: 4 of 29 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 5
✓

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

A public status page with incident history.

Source: https://status.harness.io/ · checked 2026-10-15

Across the market: Status page with history in Feature flags and experimentation: 9 of 30 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

  • HSTS max-age 31536000 seconds (365 days).
    Show the exact wording

    max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://split.io/
  • HSTS options includeSubDomains, preload.
    Show the 2 exact wordings

    max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://split.io/

    max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://split.io/

Source: https://split.io/ · checked 2026-10-15

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Feature flags and experimentation: 21 of 30 companies

✓

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

The vendor commits publicly to giving notice before the list changes.

Source: https://trust.harness.io/?utm_campaign=fme&utm_source=split_io&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=wildcard · checked 2026-10-15

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Feature flags and experimentation: 7 of 29 companies

✓

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

SOC 2 or ISO 27001 named on a public page.

Source: https://trust.harness.io/?utm_campaign=fme&utm_source=split_io&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=individual · checked 2026-10-15

Across the market: Certifications named in Feature flags and experimentation: 14 of 29 companies

✓

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

A data protection officer or a dedicated privacy address is named.

Source: https://trust.harness.io/?utm_campaign=fme&utm_source=split_io&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=wildcard · checked 2026-10-15

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Feature flags and experimentation: 13 of 29 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-08: 38 of 1002026-10-15: 35 of 100 2026-10-08 2026-10-15
Score over the last 2 runs we measured Split in: 38 (2026-10-08), 35 (2026-10-15).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

Split

5 found · 7 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-15.

Investigate 7 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Subprocessor list

    Which subprocessors apply to our product, what does each process, and in which countries? Please share the current list.

    Inspect this check
  3. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  4. Public pricing

    Please confirm the total cost for our seats and usage, including minimum commitments, add-ons, overages and renewal terms.

    Inspect this check
  5. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  6. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  7. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.