Transparency alternatives to Planet
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Planet. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 52 that differ from Planet on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Planet has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Planet” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Planet | Found at Planet, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapbox | 74/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | nothing | Compare |
| Safe Software FMEsafe.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Safe Software FME | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bentley Systems | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| CARTOcarto.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CARTO | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LightBox | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| GIS Cloudgiscloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GIS Cloud | 55/100 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Alteryx Spatialalteryx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alteryx Spatial | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Pointlypointly.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pointly | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Geoapifygeoapify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geoapify | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Geocortexvertigis.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geocortex | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Nearmapnearmap.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nearmap | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Feltfelt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Felt | 39/100 | 1 Data location stated | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.