Transparency alternatives to Atlassian
Other IT service management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Atlassian. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 29 that differ from Atlassian on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Atlassian has 3 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named. The column “Found there, not found at Atlassian” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Atlassian | Found at Atlassian, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siitsiit.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Siit | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | Compare |
| Rezolverezolve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Rezolve | 52/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 4 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Atomicworkatomicwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicwork | 48/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Xurrentxurrent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xurrent | 41/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Alloy Softwarealloysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alloy Software | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | Compare |
| GLPIglpi-project.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to GLPI | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | Compare |
| HaloITSMhaloitsm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HaloITSM | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | Compare |
| ManageEnginemanageengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ManageEngine | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| OTRSotrs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OTRS | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| SysAidsysaid.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SysAid | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | Compare |
| Issuetrakissuetrak.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Issuetrak | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | Compare |
| SolarWindssolarwinds.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SolarWinds | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 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.