SaaS Ranking
Menu

Datadog: what they publish

datadoghq.com · Monitoring and observability · checked 2026-10-14

61/100CBand C

Rank 5 of 46 in Monitoring and observability, where the median is 32.5.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-14. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

2 days since the newest dated result, 2 since the oldest. 12 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

Datadog

datadoghq.com · Monitoring and observability

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
C 61of 100 Rank 5 of 46

Published commitments6 of 9 found

Measured behaviour1 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-14. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that Datadog has no such document.

Where Datadog sits in Monitoring and observability

  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.

The band of Datadog is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What Datadog states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://www.datadoghq.com/trust/ · checked 2026-10-14

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://datadoghq.com/security – found, but behind a sign-in
  2. https://datadoghq.com/trust – found, but behind a sign-in
  3. https://datadoghq.com/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://datadoghq.com/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://datadoghq.com/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://datadoghq.com/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  7. https://datadoghq.com/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Monitoring and observability: 15 of 46 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-14.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://datadoghq.com/ – third-party requests before any interaction: ad.doubleclick.net, api.company-target.com, api.vector.co, bat.bing.com, cdn.calibermind.com, cdn.cr-relay.com, cdn.vector.co, cdnjs.cloudflare.com, client.prod.mplat-ppcprotect.com, connect.facebook.net, corp.dd-static.net, dsum-sec.casalemedia.com, e.calibermind.com, id.rlcdn.com, image2.pubmatic.com, in.ml314.com, ml314.com, munchkin.marketo.net, nexus.ensighten.com, partners.tremorhub.com, pixel.rubiconproject.com, px.ads.linkedin.com, s.company-target.com, s.yimg.jp, snap.licdn.com, t.influ2.com, tag.demandbase.com, transcend-cdn.com, www.google-analytics.com, www.google.com, www.googletagmanager.com, www.influ2.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Monitoring and observability: 1 of 48 companies

✗

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

No commitment to give notice before subprocessors change found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://datadoghq.com/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://datadoghq.com/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://datadoghq.com/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://datadoghq.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://datadoghq.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://datadoghq.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://datadoghq.com/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://datadoghq.com/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Monitoring and observability: 11 of 47 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://datadoghq.com/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://datadoghq.com/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://datadoghq.com/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://datadoghq.com/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://datadoghq.com/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://datadoghq.com/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Monitoring and observability: 8 of 47 companies

✗

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

No security.txt found.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-14.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://datadoghq.com/.well-known/security.txt – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Monitoring and observability: 9 of 46 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 7
✓

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

Published and readable without a login.

Source: https://www.datadoghq.com/legal/data-processing-addendum/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Monitoring and observability: 12 of 46 companies

✓

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

The actual list is published, not just a promise to keep one.

Source: https://www.datadoghq.com/legal/subprocessors/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Monitoring and observability: 10 of 46 companies

✓

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

A public status page with incident history.

Source: https://status.datadoghq.com/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Status page with history in Monitoring and observability: 19 of 48 companies

✓

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

Actual numbers on a public page.

Source: https://www.datadoghq.com/pricing/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Public pricing in Monitoring and observability: 38 of 48 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

  • HSTS max-age 63072000 seconds (730 days).
    Show the exact wording

    max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://datadoghq.com/
  • HSTS options includeSubDomains, preload.
    Show the 2 exact wordings

    max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://datadoghq.com/

    max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Read at https://datadoghq.com/

Source: https://datadoghq.com/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Monitoring and observability: 35 of 49 companies

✓

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

SOC 2 or ISO 27001 named on a public page.

  • Named on that page CSA STAR, Cyber Essentials (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), FedRAMP, HIPAA, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27017, ISO/IEC 27018 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), ISO/IEC 27701 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), PCI DSS (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), SOC 2 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), SOC 2 Type II (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), TISAX (not counted: the sentence does not carry it). The sentence we kept does not carry this finding on its own, so it counts in no list and no figure.
    Show the 12 exact wordings

    Compliance CCPA CSA STAR DORA EU-US DPF FedRAMP High GovRAMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Essentials Plus EU AI Act IRAP SOC 2 Type 2 Documents All Public Private Get access Bulk downl...

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    Compliance CCPA CSA STAR DORA EU-US DPF FedRAMP High GovRAMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 4

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    Compliance CCPA CSA STAR DORA EU-US DPF FedRAMP High GovRAMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    Compliance CCPA CSA STAR DORA EU-US DPF FedRAMP High GovRAMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Ess

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    Compliance CCPA CSA STAR DORA EU-US DPF FedRAMP High GovRAMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Essentials Plus E

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    iance CCPA CSA STAR DORA EU-US DPF FedRAMP High GovRAMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Essentials Plus EU AI A...

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    DORA EU-US DPF FedRAMP High GovRAMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Essentials Plus EU AI Act IRAP SOC 2 Type 2...

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    AMP GDPR HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Essentials Plus EU AI Act IRAP SOC 2 Type 2 Documents All Public Private Ge...

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    Are you SOC 2 certified?

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Essentials Plus EU AI Act IRAP SOC 2 Type 2 Documents All Public Private Get access Bulk download Featured Documents COMPLIANCE ISO...

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

    HIPAA ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27017:2015 ISO/IEC 27018:2019 ISO/IEC 27701 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 PCI DSS TISAX VPAT Cyber Essentials Plus EU AI Act IRAP SOC 2 Type 2 Documents All Public Private Get access....

    Read at https://trust.datadoghq.com/

Source: https://trust.datadoghq.com/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Certifications named in Monitoring and observability: 22 of 48 companies

✓

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

A data protection officer or a dedicated privacy address is named.

Source: https://www.datadoghq.com/legal/privacy/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Monitoring and observability: 15 of 46 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-07: 61 of 1002026-10-14: 61 of 100 2026-10-07 2026-10-14
Score over the last 2 runs we measured Datadog in: 61 (2026-10-07), 61 (2026-10-14).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

Datadog

7 found · 5 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-14.

Investigate 5 open evidence questions
  1. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  2. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  3. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  4. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check
  5. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.

Compared with

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