Transparency alternatives to Access Owl
Other Identity governance vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Access Owl. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 25 that differ from Access Owl on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Access Owl 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 “Found there, not found at Access Owl” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Access Owl | Found at Access Owl, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oasis Securityoasis.securitySee also Transparency alternatives to Oasis Security | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Hyprhypr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hypr | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Imprivataimprivata.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Imprivata | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Identityautomationidentityautomation.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Identityautomation | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Entitleentitle.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Entitle | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| GAT Labsgatlabs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GAT Labs | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Gluugluu.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Gluu | 22/100 | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Simeiosimeio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Simeio | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Avatieravatier.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Avatier | 30/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Ipgipg-group.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ipg | 23/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Omadaomadaidentity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Omada | 13/100 | 1 Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Evolveumevolveum.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Evolveum | 9/100 | 1 Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +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.