Transparency alternatives to Blue Cedar
Other Mobile application security vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Blue Cedar does not. 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 “publishes and Blue Cedar does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Blue Cedar does not | Blue Cedar publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guardsquareguardsquare.com | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Appknoxappknox.com | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Appdomeappdome.com | 22/100 | 1 Data location stated | nothing | Compare |
| NowSecurenowsecure.com | 22/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | nothing | Compare |
| Ostorlabostorlab.co | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | 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.