Transparency alternatives to Particle
Other IoT platforms and connectivity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Particle. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 43 that differ from Particle on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Particle has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Particle” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Particle | Found at Particle, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balenabalena.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Balena | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| TagoIOtago.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to TagoIO | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Memfaultmemfault.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Memfault | 57/100 | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Aerisaeris.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Aeris | 26/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| ThingsBoardthingsboard.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to ThingsBoard | 43/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Datacakedatacake.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Datacake | 39/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Litmuslitmus.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Litmus | 32/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| HiveMQhivemq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HiveMQ | 22/100 | 1 Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| ODOodosolutions.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ODO | 13/100 | 1 Certifications named | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| EMnifyemnify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EMnify | 35/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Emteriaemteria.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Emteria | 30/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Mendermender.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mender | 30/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 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.