Transparency alternatives to Safe Software FME
Other GIS and mapping vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Safe Software FME. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 52 that differ from Safe Software FME on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Safe Software FME has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Safe Software FME” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Safe Software FME | Found at Safe Software FME, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapboxmapbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapbox | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | Compare |
| GIS Cloudgiscloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GIS Cloud | 55/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Planetplanet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Planet | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| LightBoxlightboxre.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LightBox | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Bentley Systemsbentley.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bentley Systems | 43/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Pointlypointly.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Pointly | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| MetaLocatormetalocator.comSee also Transparency alternatives to MetaLocator | 38/100 | 2 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Geoapifygeoapify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Geoapify | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Alteryx Spatialalteryx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alteryx Spatial | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Maptilermaptiler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Maptiler | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| AmigoCloudamigocloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AmigoCloud | 17/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | Compare |
| Mapmemapme.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mapme | 13/100 | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +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.