Transparency alternatives to Mendix
Other Low-code and internal tools vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Mendix. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Mendix on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Mendix has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Mendix” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Mendix | Found at Mendix, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caspiocaspio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Caspio | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Retoolretool.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Retool | 61/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Forest Adminforestadmin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Forest Admin | 57/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pegapega.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pega | 52/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Jet Adminjetadmin.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Jet Admin | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| DronaHQdronahq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DronaHQ | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Superblockssuperblocks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Superblocks | 52/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Porypory.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pory | 39/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Kohezionkohezion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kohezion | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 5 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Xanoxano.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Xano | 35/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| RUAL Corerual.nlSee also Transparency alternatives to RUAL Core | 32/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Cognisscogniss.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cogniss | 30/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Status page with history, 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.