Transparency alternatives to Guardsquare
Other Mobile application security vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Guardsquare. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
5 shown of 5 that differ from Guardsquare on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Guardsquare has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Guardsquare” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Guardsquare | Found at Guardsquare, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ostorlabostorlab.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Ostorlab | 35/100 | 1 Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Appknoxappknox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Appknox | 26/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| NowSecurenowsecure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NowSecure | 26/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Appdomeappdome.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Appdome | 22/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Blue Cedarbluecedar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blue Cedar | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +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.