SaaS Ranking
Menu

MetaLocator: what they publish

metalocator.com · GIS and mapping · checked 2026-10-28

35/100EBand E

Rank 15 of 52 in GIS and mapping, where the median is 22.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-28. 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

5 days since the newest dated result, 5 since the oldest. 12 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

MetaLocator

metalocator.com · GIS and mapping

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
E 35of 100 Rank 15 of 52

Published commitments4 of 9 found

Measured behaviour0 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-28. 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 MetaLocator has no such document.

Where MetaLocator sits in GIS and mapping

  1. A0 0%
  2. B1 2%
  3. C2 4%
  4. D2 4%
  5. E19 37%
  6. F28 54%
52 vendors with a score; 4 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of MetaLocator 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 MetaLocator 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

✗

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

No subprocessor list found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-28.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://metalocator.com/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://metalocator.com/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://metalocator.com/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://metalocator.com/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://metalocator.com/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://metalocator.com/privacy/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://metalocator.com/legal/subprocessor-list – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Subprocessor list in GIS and mapping: 4 of 52 companies

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

No statement about data location found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-28.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://metalocator.com/security – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://metalocator.com/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://metalocator.com/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://metalocator.com/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://metalocator.com/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://metalocator.com/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://metalocator.com/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in GIS and mapping: 20 of 53 companies

✗

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

No public status page found.

Checked 3 addresses on 2026-10-28.

Show the 3 addresses we checked
  1. https://status.metalocator.com/ – The name "status.metalocator.com" could not be resolved.
  2. https://metalocator.com/status – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://metalocator.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: 9 of 52 companies

✗

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

No enforced HTTPS with HSTS found.

Checked 2 addresses on 2026-10-28.

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

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in GIS and mapping: 35 of 55 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-28.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://metalocator.com/ – third-party requests before any interaction: 0572fca89f70.w.hcaptcha.com, 51ec6e077bb9.w.hcaptcha.com, ajax.googleapis.com, api.getdrip.com, api.hcaptcha.com, assets.calendly.com, cdn.firstpromoter.com, cdn.jsdelivr.net, connect.facebook.net, fonts.googleapis.com, fonts.gstatic.com, forms.hscollectedforms.net, forms.hsforms.com, js.chargebee.com, js.hs-analytics.net, js.hs-banner.com, js.hs-scripts.com, js.hscollectedforms.net, metalocator.chargebee.com, metalocator.chargebeestaticv2.com, newassets.hcaptcha.com, px.ads.linkedin.com, region1.analytics.google.com, snap.licdn.com, stats.g.doubleclick.net, tag.getdrip.com, use.fontawesome.com, widget.intercom.io, www.facebook.com, www.google.com, www.google.de, www.googletagmanager.com, www.gstatic.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in GIS and mapping: 5 of 55 companies

✗

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

No named certification found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-28.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://metalocator.com/security – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://metalocator.com/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://metalocator.com/trust-center – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://metalocator.com/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://metalocator.com/legal/security – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://trust.metalocator.com/ – blocked or unavailable (HTTP 403)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

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

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-28.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://metalocator.com/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://metalocator.com/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://metalocator.com/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://metalocator.com/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://metalocator.com/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://metalocator.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: 3 of 52 companies

✗

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

No security.txt found.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-28.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://metalocator.com/.well-known/security.txt – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in GIS and mapping: 7 of 50 companies

Evidence

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

Published, with a source 4
✓

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

Published and readable without a login.

Source: https://www.metalocator.com/policies/data-processing-agreement/ · checked 2026-10-28

Across the market: Data processing agreement in GIS and mapping: 7 of 52 companies

✓

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

Actual numbers on a public page.

Source: https://www.metalocator.com/pricing/ · checked 2026-10-28

Across the market: Public pricing in GIS and mapping: 25 of 53 companies

✓

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

The vendor commits publicly to giving notice before the list changes.

Source: https://www.metalocator.com/policies/data-processing-agreement/ · checked 2026-10-28

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in GIS and mapping: 5 of 52 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.metalocator.com/policies/privacy-policy/ · checked 2026-10-28

Across the market: Named privacy contact in GIS and mapping: 21 of 53 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-21: 35 of 1002026-10-28: 35 of 100 2026-10-21 2026-10-28
Score over the last 2 runs we measured MetaLocator in: 35 (2026-10-21), 35 (2026-10-28).

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.

MetaLocator

4 found · 8 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-28.

Investigate 8 open evidence questions
  1. Subprocessor list

    Which subprocessors apply to our product, what does each process, and in which countries? Please share the current list.

    Inspect this check
  2. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  3. 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
  4. Certifications named

    Please share the current certificate or audit report and its scope, covered legal entity, products and validity period.

    Inspect this check
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

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

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

    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.