Transparency alternatives to OpenGov
Other Software for local government vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at OpenGov. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 62 that differ from OpenGov on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
OpenGov has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at OpenGov” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at OpenGov | Found at OpenGov, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accelaaccela.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Accela | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Submittablesubmittable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Submittable | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Fluxxfluxx.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Fluxx | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Foundantfoundant.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Foundant | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Rekorrekor.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Rekor | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Axonaxon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Axon | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Polcopolco.usSee also Transparency alternatives to Polco | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| ProudCityproudcity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ProudCity | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | Compare |
| Apply4apply4.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Apply4 | 17/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Granicusgranicus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Granicus | 17/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Kahuakahua.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kahua | 17/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Zencityzencity.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Zencity | 17/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 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.