SaaS Ranking
Menu

OpenGov: what they publish

opengov.com · Software for local government · checked 2026-10-16

30/100EBand E

Rank 6 of 63 in Software for local government, where the median is 9.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-16. 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

3 days since the newest dated result, 3 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

OpenGov

opengov.com · Software for local government

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
E 30of 100 Rank 6 of 63

Published commitments3 of 9 found

Measured behaviour1 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-16. 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 OpenGov has no such document.

Where OpenGov sits in Software for local government

  1. A0 0%
  2. B0 0%
  3. C1 2%
  4. D2 3%
  5. E7 11%
  6. F53 84%
63 vendors with a score; 5 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of OpenGov 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 OpenGov 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 2026-10-16.

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

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Software for local government: 1 of 63 companies

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://opengov.com/security/ · checked 2026-10-16

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://opengov.com/security – found, but behind a sign-in
  2. https://opengov.com/trust – found, but behind a sign-in
  3. https://opengov.com/legal/privacy – found, but behind a sign-in
  4. https://opengov.com/privacy – found, but behind a sign-in
  5. https://opengov.com/privacy-policy – found, but behind a sign-in
  6. https://opengov.com/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://opengov.com/legal/privacy-policy – found, but behind a sign-in

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Software for local government: 15 of 63 companies

✗

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

No public status page found.

Checked 3 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 3 addresses we checked
  1. https://status.opengov.com/ – No answer within 10 seconds.
  2. https://opengov.com/status – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://opengov.com.statuspage.io/ – Could not be fetched: fetch failed.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Status page with history in Software for local government: 7 of 64 companies

✗

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

No public pricing with figures found.

Checked 5 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 5 addresses we checked
  1. https://opengov.com/pricing – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://opengov.com/pricing/ – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://opengov.com/plans – reached and rendered, no match
  4. https://opengov.com/en/pricing – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://opengov.com/pricing-plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Public pricing in Software for local government: 6 of 63 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

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

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-16.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://opengov.com/ – third-party requests before any interaction: cdnjs.cloudflare.com, consent.cookiebot.com, consentcdn.cookiebot.com, embed.cloudflarestream.com, fonts.gstatic.com, secure.gaug.es

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Software for local government: 1 of 67 companies

✗

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

No commitment to give notice before subprocessors change found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-16.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://opengov.com/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://opengov.com/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://opengov.com/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://opengov.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://opengov.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://opengov.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://opengov.com/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://opengov.com/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Software for local government: 2 of 63 companies

✗

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

No security.txt found.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-16.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://opengov.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 Software for local government: 2 of 63 companies

✗

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://opengov.com/privacy-policy/ · checked 2026-10-16

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://opengov.com/legal/privacy – found, but behind a sign-in
  2. https://opengov.com/privacy – found, but behind a sign-in
  3. https://opengov.com/privacy-policy – found, but behind a sign-in
  4. https://opengov.com/legal/privacy-policy – found, but behind a sign-in
  5. https://opengov.com/legal/privacy-notice – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://opengov.com/trust/privacy – found, but behind a sign-in
  7. https://opengov.com/datenschutz – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Software for local government: 17 of 63 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://opengov.com/terms-of-service/data-processing-addendum/ · checked 2026-10-16

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Software for local government: 2 of 63 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

  • HSTS max-age 31536000 seconds (365 days).
    Show the exact wording

    max-age=31536000

    Read at https://opengov.com/

Source: https://opengov.com/ · checked 2026-10-16

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Software for local government: 37 of 67 companies

✓

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

SOC 2 or ISO 27001 named on a public page.

  • Named on that page FedRAMP (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), SOC 2 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), SOC 2 Type II (not counted: the sentence does not carry it). The sentence we kept does not carry this finding on its own, so it counts in no list and no figure.
    Show the 3 exact wordings

    Physical and environmental controls are inherited from AWS’s FedRAMP-authorized infrastructure.

    Read at https://opengov.com/security/

    Results are documented and reviewed during annual SOC 2 audits.

    Read at https://opengov.com/security/

    Visit the OpenGov Trust Center SOC 2 Type II Security, Availability, Processing Integrity & Confidentiality AES-256 Encryption at Rest T

    Read at https://opengov.com/security/

Source: https://opengov.com/security/ · checked 2026-10-16

Across the market: Certifications named in Software for local government: 14 of 63 companies

✓

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

An availability commitment with a figure.

  • Highest uptime figure on that page 99.9 %.
    Show the exact wording

    OpenGov’s Quarterly Uptime Percentage is 99.9% for the Software Services (excluding any OpenGov software not hosted by OpenGov).

    Read at https://opengov.com/service-sla/

Source: https://opengov.com/service-sla/ · checked 2026-10-16

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Software for local government: 4 of 63 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-09: 39 of 1002026-10-16: 30 of 100 2026-10-09 2026-10-16
Score over the last 2 runs we measured OpenGov in: 39 (2026-10-09), 30 (2026-10-16).

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.

OpenGov

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: 2026-10-16.

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. Public pricing

    Please confirm the total cost for our seats and usage, including minimum commitments, add-ons, overages and renewal terms.

    Inspect this check
  5. 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
  6. security.txt (RFC 9116)

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

    Inspect this check
  7. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check
  8. Named privacy contact

    Which privacy contact handles requests for our account, and what escalation path should we use?

    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.