SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to GIS Cloud

Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at GIS Cloud. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 52 that differ from GIS Cloud on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

GIS Cloud has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at GIS Cloud” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at GIS CloudFound at GIS Cloud, not found there
Mapboxmapbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapbox 61/100 4 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Bentley Systemsbentley.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bentley Systems 43/100 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 Compare
Safe Software FMEsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Safe Software FME 52/100 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Nearmapnearmap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nearmap 22/100 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 Compare
LightBoxlightboxre.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LightBox 48/100 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 Compare
Planetplanet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Planet 48/100 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
MetaLocatormetalocator.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MetaLocator 38/100 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named Compare
CARTOcarto.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CARTO 35/100 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 Compare
Foursquarefoursquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foursquare 30/100 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 Compare
Stadia Mapsstadiamaps.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stadia Maps 30/100 2 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 Compare
Ascent Cloudascentcloud.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Ascent Cloud 22/100 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 Compare
Regridregrid.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Regrid 17/100 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 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.