Transparency alternatives to Ascent Cloud
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ascent Cloud. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 52 that differ from Ascent Cloud on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ascent Cloud has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, 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 Ascent Cloud” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ascent Cloud | Found at Ascent Cloud, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapbox | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| GIS Cloudgiscloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GIS Cloud | 55/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LightBox | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Planetplanet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Planet | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bentley Systems | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Pointlypointly.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pointly | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| MetaLocatormetalocator.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MetaLocator | 38/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Safe Software FMEsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Safe Software FME | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Feltfelt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Felt | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| UP42up42.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UP42 | 38/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Geoapifygeoapify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geoapify | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Geocortexvertigis.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geocortex | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 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.