Transparency alternatives to SuperTokens
Other Password and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at SuperTokens. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from SuperTokens on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
SuperTokens has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, 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 SuperTokens” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at SuperTokens | Found at SuperTokens, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keeperkeepersecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keeper | 87/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | nothing | Compare |
| Clerkclerk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clerk | 74/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| Ping Identitypingidentity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ping Identity | 61/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| 1Password1password.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 1Password | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Oktaokta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Okta | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| WorkOSworkos.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WorkOS | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Dashlanedashlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dashlane | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Descopedescope.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Descope | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Cerboscerbos.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Cerbos | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Duo Securityduo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Duo Security | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Fronteggfrontegg.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Frontegg | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Zitadelzitadel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zitadel | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | 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.