Transparency alternatives to Pointly
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Pointly does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 53 that differ from Pointly on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pointly has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “publishes and Pointly does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Pointly does not | Pointly publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.com | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Planetplanet.com | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| GIS Cloudgiscloud.com | 55/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Safe Software FMEsafe.com | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.com | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.com | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| MetaLocatormetalocator.com | 38/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Geoapifygeoapify.com | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Ascent Cloudascentcloud.io | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Nearmapnearmap.com | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| eSpatialespatial.com | 35/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Skyfiskyfi.com | 35/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 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.