Transparency alternatives to Permit.io
Other Password and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Permit.io. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 34 that differ from Permit.io on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Permit.io has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Permit.io” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Permit.io | Found at Permit.io, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keeperkeepersecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keeper | 87/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Clerkclerk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clerk | 74/100 | 5 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Ping Identitypingidentity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ping Identity | 61/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Oktaokta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Okta | 61/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| 1Password1password.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 1Password | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Dashlanedashlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dashlane | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | Compare |
| Descopedescope.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Descope | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | Compare |
| Duo Securityduo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Duo Security | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Fronteggfrontegg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontegg | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| WorkOSworkos.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WorkOS | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Zitadelzitadel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zitadel | 48/100 | 3 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Oryory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ory | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data processing agreement | 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.