Transparency alternatives to Balena
Other IoT platforms and connectivity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Balena. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 43 that differ from Balena on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Balena has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Balena” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Balena | Found at Balena, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Memfaultmemfault.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Memfault | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Particleparticle.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Particle | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| ThingsBoardthingsboard.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to ThingsBoard | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Siemens Insightssiemens.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Siemens Insights | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Datacakedatacake.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Datacake | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| EMnifyemnify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EMnify | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| TagoIOtago.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to TagoIO | 35/100 | 1 Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Litmuslitmus.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Litmus | 32/100 | 1 Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Emteriaemteria.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Emteria | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Mendermender.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mender | 30/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Monogotomonogoto.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Monogoto | 30/100 | 1 Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Onomondoonomondo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Onomondo | 30/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, 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.