Transparency alternatives to Siit
Other IT service management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Siit. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 29 that differ from Siit on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Siit has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Siit” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Siit | Found at Siit, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlassianatlassian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atlassian | 71/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +4 | 3 Data location stated, 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 Data location stated | Compare |
| Atomicworkatomicwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicwork | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Alloy Softwarealloysoftware.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alloy Software | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Ivantiivanti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ivanti | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Xurrentxurrent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xurrent | 41/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| ManageEnginemanageengine.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ManageEngine | 35/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| OTRSotrs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OTRS | 35/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| TOPdesktopdesk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TOPdesk | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Vivantiovivantio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vivantio | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Dreamtsoftdreamtsoft.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dreamtsoft | 22/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Motadatamotadata.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Motadata | 13/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 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.