SaaS Ranking
Menu

SaaS transparency ranking · Engineering and data

Monitoring and observability software

49 vendors · updated 2026-10-16 · 3 without enough data for a score

Monitoring, logging and observability platforms, ranked by what they publish about how they handle your data.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Transparency means: published on the vendor's own site, readable without a login, found by us at the addresses we checked.

+16points above the median of every category we measure

  • Monitoring and observability33
  • All categories17
Median transparency score, out of 100. Monitoring and observability sits above the median across every category we measure.
  1. A0 0%
  2. B2 4%
  3. C8 17%
  4. D5 11%
  5. E17 37%
  6. F14 30%
46 vendors with a score; 3 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.
All filters
Show only vendors where we found

Transparency band

3 without enough data for a band

49 vendors

Sort by

Not in the ranking

We could not measure this product with our method, so it is listed here instead of being scored. This says something about our method, not about the vendor.

Narrow it down

Each of these lists the Monitoring and observability vendors that meet one condition, with the source for each, and appears only where at least 8 of them meet it.

Shared dependencies

9 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Amazon Web Services on it, that is 90 %.

Of the 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read, these names appear on the most of them. A vendor without a published list cannot be missing from one, so it is not in the denominator.

Named on the list ofVendorsShareWhat that says
Amazon Web Services 9 90 % 9 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Amazon Web Services on it.
Datadog 7 70 % 7 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Datadog on it.
Google Cloud 7 70 % 7 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Google Cloud on it.
Microsoft Azure 6 60 % 6 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Microsoft Azure on it.
Salesforce 5 50 % 5 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Salesforce on it.
Slack 5 50 % 5 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Slack on it.
New Relic 4 40 % 4 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name New Relic on it.
Zendesk 4 40 % 4 of 10 Monitoring and observability vendors whose subprocessor list we could read name Zendesk on it.

This is a naming, not a dependency. A name on a subprocessor list means the vendor published it there. Whether anything actually runs on it, how much of it, and what the fallback is, is on none of these pages. What the figure does show is concentration: if three of your four candidates name the same provider, you have one path and not four.

This category, criterion by criterion

How this market does on each criterion, with its own share and how it compares with the rest.

Head-to-head comparisons

Each comparison lists only the criteria where the two differ, with the source for every one. All comparisons.

Every result links its source on the vendor page. A grey segment means we could not measure it, not that it is missing. See how we score.