Transparency alternatives to Issuetrak
Other IT service management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Issuetrak. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 28 that differ from Issuetrak on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Issuetrak has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Issuetrak” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Issuetrak | Found at Issuetrak, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlassianatlassian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atlassian | 71/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Rezolverezolve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Rezolve | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Ivantiivanti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ivanti | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Atomicworkatomicwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicwork | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | nothing | Compare |
| Xurrentxurrent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xurrent | 41/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Alloy Softwarealloysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alloy Software | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| ManageEnginemanageengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ManageEngine | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| OTRSotrs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OTRS | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| TOPdesktopdesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TOPdesk | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Dreamtsoftdreamtsoft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dreamtsoft | 22/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| GLPIglpi-project.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to GLPI | 35/100 | 1 Data location stated | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| HaloITSMhaloitsm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HaloITSM | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 1 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.