Transparency alternatives to Motadata
Other IT service management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Motadata. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 29 that differ from Motadata on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Motadata has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Motadata” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Motadata | Found at Motadata, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlassianatlassian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atlassian | 71/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| Rezolverezolve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Rezolve | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Atomicworkatomicwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicwork | 48/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Xurrentxurrent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xurrent | 41/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Ivantiivanti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ivanti | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| HaloITSMhaloitsm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to HaloITSM | 35/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ManageEnginemanageengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ManageEngine | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| OTRSotrs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OTRS | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Siitsiit.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Siit | 35/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| TOPdesktopdesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TOPdesk | 30/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Alloy Softwarealloysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alloy Software | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| GLPIglpi-project.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to GLPI | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 1 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.