SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Alloy Software

Other IT service management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Alloy Software. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 29 that differ from Alloy Software on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Alloy Software has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Alloy Software” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at Alloy SoftwareFound at Alloy Software, not found there
Atlassianatlassian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atlassian 71/100 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 2 Public pricing, Certifications named Compare
Ivantiivanti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ivanti 39/100 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 Compare
Rezolverezolve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Rezolve 52/100 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact Compare
Atomicworkatomicwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicwork 48/100 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Xurrentxurrent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xurrent 41/100 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
ManageEnginemanageengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ManageEngine 35/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
OTRSotrs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OTRS 35/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
TOPdesktopdesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TOPdesk 30/100 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 Compare
GLPIglpi-project.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to GLPI 35/100 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent Compare
Siitsiit.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Siit 35/100 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact Compare
SysAidsysaid.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SysAid 30/100 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 Compare
Vivantiovivantio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vivantio 30/100 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent 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.