SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to WorkOS

Other Password and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at WorkOS. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 34 that differ from WorkOS on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

WorkOS has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at WorkOS” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at WorkOSFound at WorkOS, not found there
Keeperkeepersecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Keeper 74/100 5 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Dashlanedashlane.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dashlane 52/100 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 Compare
Oktaokta.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Okta 61/100 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Ping Identitypingidentity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ping Identity 61/100 4 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
1Password1password.comSee also Transparency alternatives to 1Password 57/100 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Passboltpassbolt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Passbolt 43/100 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 Compare
Clerkclerk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Clerk 52/100 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 2 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Duo Securityduo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Duo Security 48/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Zitadelzitadel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zitadel 48/100 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure Compare
Oryory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ory 43/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change Compare
Descopedescope.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Descope 39/100 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 Compare
FusionAuthfusionauth.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to FusionAuth 39/100 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change 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.