Transparency alternatives to Geoapify
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Geoapify. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 52 that differ from Geoapify on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Geoapify has 9 gaps in what we could measure: 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 “Found there, not found at Geoapify” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Geoapify | Found at Geoapify, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapbox | 61/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Safe Software FMEsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Safe Software FME | 52/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Planetplanet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Planet | 48/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bentley Systems | 43/100 | 5 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| GIS Cloudgiscloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GIS Cloud | 55/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Feltfelt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Felt | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Pointlypointly.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pointly | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| CARTOcarto.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CARTO | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Geocortexvertigis.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geocortex | 30/100 | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LightBox | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| UP42up42.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UP42 | 38/100 | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| eSpatialespatial.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eSpatial | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data processing agreement, 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.