Transparency alternatives to Blue Cedar
Other Mobile application security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Blue Cedar. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
5 shown of 5 that differ from Blue Cedar on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Blue Cedar has 11 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, 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 Blue Cedar” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Blue Cedar | Found at Blue Cedar, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guardsquareguardsquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Guardsquare | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Ostorlabostorlab.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Ostorlab | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| Appknoxappknox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Appknox | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| NowSecurenowsecure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NowSecure | 26/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Appdomeappdome.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Appdome | 22/100 | 1 Data location stated | nothing | 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.