Transparency alternatives to Keeper
Other Password and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Keeper. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Keeper on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Keeper has 3 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure. The column “Found there, not found at Keeper” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Keeper | Found at Keeper, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oktaokta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Okta | 61/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| 1Password1password.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 1Password | 57/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Duo Securityduo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Duo Security | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | Compare |
| WorkOSworkos.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WorkOS | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | Compare |
| Oryory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ory | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | Compare |
| Fronteggfrontegg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontegg | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | Compare |
| Ping Identitypingidentity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ping Identity | 61/100 | 1 Status page with history | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dashlanedashlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dashlane | 52/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Passboltpassbolt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Passbolt | 43/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Descopedescope.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Descope | 39/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | Compare |
| FusionAuthfusionauth.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to FusionAuth | 39/100 | 1 Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| JumpCloudjumpcloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to JumpCloud | 35/100 | 1 Status page with history | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | 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.