SaaS Ranking
Menu

GIS Cloud: what they publish

giscloud.com · GIS and mapping · checked 2026-10-13

55/100CBand C

Rank 2 of 53 in GIS and mapping, where the median is 18.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-13. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

6 days since the newest dated result, 6 since the oldest. 11 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

GIS Cloud

giscloud.com · GIS and mapping

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
C 55of 100 Rank 2 of 53

Published commitments5 of 9 found

Measured behaviour1 of 2 found, 1 not measured

Checked 2026-10-13. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that GIS Cloud has no such document.

Where GIS Cloud sits in GIS and mapping

  1. A0 0%
  2. B0 0%
  3. C2 4%
  4. D4 8%
  5. E15 28%
  6. F32 60%
53 vendors with a score; 3 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of GIS Cloud is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What GIS Cloud states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

No data processing agreement found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://giscloud.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://giscloud.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://giscloud.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://giscloud.com/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://giscloud.com/legal/data-processing-addendum – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://giscloud.com/legal/gdpr – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://giscloud.com/trust/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://giscloud.com/privacy/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in GIS and mapping: 6 of 53 companies

✗

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

No public status page found.

Checked 3 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 3 addresses we checked
  1. https://status.giscloud.com/ – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://giscloud.com/status – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://giscloud.com.statuspage.io/ – Could not be fetched: fetch failed.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Status page with history in GIS and mapping: 8 of 53 companies

✗

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

No enforced HTTPS with HSTS found.

Checked 2 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 2 addresses we checked
  1. http://giscloud.com/ – redirects to https://giscloud.com/
  2. https://giscloud.com/ – no HSTS header

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in GIS and mapping: 34 of 55 companies

✗

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

No commitment to give notice before subprocessors change found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://giscloud.com/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://giscloud.com/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://giscloud.com/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://giscloud.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://giscloud.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://giscloud.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://giscloud.com/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://giscloud.com/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in GIS and mapping: 4 of 53 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://giscloud.com/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://giscloud.com/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://giscloud.com/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://giscloud.com/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://giscloud.com/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://giscloud.com/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in GIS and mapping: 4 of 53 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 6
✓

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

The actual list is published, not just a promise to keep one.

Source: https://www.giscloud.com/subprocessors/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Subprocessor list in GIS and mapping: 4 of 53 companies

✓

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

The hosting location is stated on a public page.

  • Locations named next to the hosting wording Australia, United States. This does not establish the company’s headquarters.
    Show the 2 exact wordings

    Optionally you can request your information to be stored on our servers in EU or Australia.

    Read at https://www.giscloud.com/privacy-policy/

    How we store your data and secure it Data storage and security We use data hosting service providers in the United States to host the information we collect, and we use technical measures to secure yo...

    Read at https://www.giscloud.com/privacy-policy/

Source: https://www.giscloud.com/privacy-policy/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Data location stated in GIS and mapping: 13 of 54 companies

✓

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

Actual numbers on a public page.

Source: https://www.giscloud.com/pricing/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Public pricing in GIS and mapping: 26 of 54 companies

✓weight 2 of 3

No third-party requests before any interaction.

Source: https://giscloud.com/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in GIS and mapping: 3 of 54 companies

✓

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

SOC 2 or ISO 27001 named on a public page.

  • Named on that page ISO/IEC 27001 (unclear from the sentence).
    Show the exact wording

    ISO 27001 certified, with AI that proposes and never acts without your confirmation.

    Read at https://www.giscloud.com/security/

Source: https://www.giscloud.com/security/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Certifications named in GIS and mapping: 11 of 54 companies

✓

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

A data protection officer or a dedicated privacy address is named.

Source: https://www.giscloud.com/privacy-policy/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Named privacy contact in GIS and mapping: 21 of 54 companies

Not measured by us 1
–

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

Not measured. The vendor’s server blocked or rate-limited our crawler, so this was not measured.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://giscloud.com/.well-known/security.txt – blocked or unavailable (HTTP 403)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in GIS and mapping: 7 of 51 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-06: 55 of 1002026-10-13: 55 of 100 2026-10-06 2026-10-13
Score over the last 2 runs we measured GIS Cloud in: 55 (2026-10-06), 55 (2026-10-13).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

GIS Cloud

6 found · 5 not found · 1 not measured across 12 public checks.

11 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-13.

Investigate 6 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Status page with history

    Where can we review incident history for the service we will use, and how do we subscribe to incident updates?

    Inspect this check
  3. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  4. HTTPS enforced with HSTS

    How is HTTPS enforced on the product and sign-in domains we will use? Please distinguish those domains from the public website.

    Inspect this check
  5. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check
  6. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.