Transparency alternatives to Dashlane
Other Password and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Dashlane. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Dashlane on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Dashlane has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, 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 Dashlane” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Dashlane | Found at Dashlane, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WorkOSworkos.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WorkOS | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Keeperkeepersecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keeper | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Ping Identitypingidentity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ping Identity | 61/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| 1Password1password.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 1Password | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | Compare |
| Clerkclerk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clerk | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Oktaokta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Okta | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Duo Securityduo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Duo Security | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Zitadelzitadel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zitadel | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Oryory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ory | 43/100 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Cerboscerbos.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Cerbos | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Fronteggfrontegg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontegg | 39/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| FusionAuthfusionauth.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to FusionAuth | 39/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 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.