Transparency alternatives to Geocortex
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Geocortex. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 52 that differ from Geocortex on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Geocortex has 8 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, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Geocortex” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Geocortex | Found at Geocortex, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapbox | 61/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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 |
| Planetplanet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Planet | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Safe Software FMEsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Safe Software FME | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LightBox | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bentley Systems | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| MetaLocatormetalocator.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MetaLocator | 38/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Geoapifygeoapify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geoapify | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Feltfelt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Felt | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| eSpatialespatial.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eSpatial | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Skyfiskyfi.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skyfi | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Foursquarefoursquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foursquare | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.