Transparency alternatives to AmigoCloud
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that AmigoCloud does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 53 that differ from AmigoCloud on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
AmigoCloud has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “publishes and AmigoCloud does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and AmigoCloud does not | AmigoCloud publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.com | 61/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Planetplanet.com | 57/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Safe Software FMEsafe.com | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.com | 43/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| GIS Cloudgiscloud.com | 55/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.com | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Pointlypointly.ai | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Feltfelt.com | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Geocortexvertigis.com | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| MetaLocatormetalocator.com | 38/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| UP42up42.com | 38/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| eSpatialespatial.com | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.