Transparency alternatives to Ecopia
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ecopia. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 52 that differ from Ecopia on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ecopia has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Ecopia” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ecopia | Found at Ecopia, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapbox | 74/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| GIS Cloudgiscloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GIS Cloud | 55/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LightBox | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Planetplanet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Planet | 52/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Safe Software FMEsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Safe Software FME | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| Alteryx Spatialalteryx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alteryx Spatial | 39/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bentley Systems | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| MetaLocatormetalocator.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MetaLocator | 38/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Geoapifygeoapify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geoapify | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Maptilermaptiler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Maptiler | 26/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Mapmemapme.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapme | 22/100 | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Feltfelt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Felt | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | nothing | 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.