Transparency alternatives to Jet Admin
Other Low-code and internal tools vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Jet Admin. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Jet Admin on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Jet Admin has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Jet Admin” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Jet Admin | Found at Jet Admin, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retoolretool.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retool | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Mendixmendix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mendix | 52/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Pegapega.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pega | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Superblockssuperblocks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Superblocks | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Caspiocaspio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Caspio | 57/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Forest Adminforestadmin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Forest Admin | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Betty Blocksbettyblocks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Betty Blocks | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Budibasebudibase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Budibase | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Agilebaseagilebase.co.ukSee also Transparency alternatives to Agilebase | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Xanoxano.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xano | 35/100 | 3 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Cognisscogniss.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cogniss | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| OutSystemsoutsystems.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OutSystems | 24/100 | 3 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.