Transparency alternatives to AlertOps
Other Incident management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at AlertOps. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from AlertOps on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
AlertOps has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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 AlertOps” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at AlertOps | Found at AlertOps, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| incident.ioincident.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to incident.io | 65/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Hyperpinghyperping.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Hyperping | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| OhDearohdear.appSee also Transparency alternatives to OhDear | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Moogsoftmoogsoft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Moogsoft | 61/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Resolveresolve.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Resolve | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Uptime.comuptime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Uptime.com | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| PagerDutypagerduty.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PagerDuty | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| BigPandabigpanda.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to BigPanda | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Rootlyrootly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rootly | 48/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Instatusinstatus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Instatus | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Causelycausely.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Causely | 35/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| All Quietallquiet.appSee also Transparency alternatives to All Quiet | 48/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 1 Status page with history | 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.