Transparency alternatives to Appdome
Other Mobile application security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Appdome. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
5 shown of 5 that differ from Appdome on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Appdome has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, 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 Appdome” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Appdome | Found at Appdome, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guardsquareguardsquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Guardsquare | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Ostorlabostorlab.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Ostorlab | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| NowSecurenowsecure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NowSecure | 26/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Appknoxappknox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Appknox | 26/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Blue Cedarbluecedar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blue Cedar | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 1 Data location stated | 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.