Transparency alternatives to H2O.ai
Other MLOps and model serving vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at H2O.ai. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 33 that differ from H2O.ai on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
H2O.ai has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at H2O.ai” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at H2O.ai | Found at H2O.ai, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superwisesuperwise.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Superwise | 65/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Nscalenscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nscale | 52/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Paperspacepaperspace.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Paperspace | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Unionunion.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Union | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| CoreWeavecoreweave.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CoreWeave | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | Compare |
| Basetenbaseten.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Baseten | 52/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Vast.aivast.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Vast.ai | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| BentoMLbentoml.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BentoML | 32/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Cometcomet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Comet | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| DataRobotdatarobot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DataRobot | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Replicatereplicate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicate | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Valohaivalohai.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Valohai | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 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.