Transparency alternatives to Descope
Other Password and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Descope. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Descope on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Descope has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Descope” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Descope | Found at Descope, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keeperkeepersecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keeper | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| 1Password1password.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 1Password | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Oktaokta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Okta | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Ping Identitypingidentity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ping Identity | 61/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Clerkclerk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clerk | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Duo Securityduo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Duo Security | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| WorkOSworkos.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WorkOS | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Zitadelzitadel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zitadel | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Oryory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ory | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Passboltpassbolt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Passbolt | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Fronteggfrontegg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontegg | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| FusionAuthfusionauth.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to FusionAuth | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 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.