Transparency alternatives to Kohezion
Other Low-code and internal tools vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Kohezion. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Kohezion on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Kohezion has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Kohezion” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Kohezion | Found at Kohezion, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retoolretool.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retool | 61/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +4 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | Compare |
| Forest Adminforestadmin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Forest Admin | 70/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Mendixmendix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mendix | 52/100 | 5 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Pegapega.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pega | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | Compare |
| Superblockssuperblocks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Superblocks | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Budibasebudibase.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Budibase | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| RUAL Corerual.nlSee also Transparency alternatives to RUAL Core | 35/100 | 4 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | Compare |
| Xanoxano.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xano | 35/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | Compare |
| Caspiocaspio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Caspio | 57/100 | 3 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Teableteable.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Teable | 57/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Jet Adminjetadmin.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Jet Admin | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| UI Bakeryuibakery.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to UI Bakery | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 Data processing agreement | 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.