Transparency alternatives to Treasure Data
Other Marketing attribution vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Treasure Data. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Treasure Data on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Treasure Data has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, 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 Treasure Data” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Treasure Data | Found at Treasure Data, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dubdub.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Dub | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Cometlycometly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cometly | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Supermetricssupermetrics.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Supermetrics | 65/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Analyzifyanalyzify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Analyzify | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| AppsFlyerappsflyer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to AppsFlyer | 50/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Factors.aifactors.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Factors.ai | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Stapestape.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Stape | 39/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| ReportGardenreportgarden.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ReportGarden | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Northbeamnorthbeam.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Northbeam | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Tealiumtealium.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tealium | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Whatagraphwhatagraph.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Whatagraph | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Improvadoimprovado.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Improvado | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 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.