Transparency alternatives to Dynatrace
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Dynatrace. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Dynatrace on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Dynatrace has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Dynatrace” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Dynatrace | Found at Dynatrace, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentrysentry.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sentry | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| OpenObserveopenobserve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 73/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Honeycombhoneycomb.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Honeycomb | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Sumo Logicsumologic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sumo Logic | 70/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pulseticpulsetic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pulsetic | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| OneUptimeoneuptime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneUptime | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Better Stackbetterstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Better Stack | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Coralogixcoralogix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Coralogix | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| New Relicnewrelic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to New Relic | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| UptimeRobotuptimerobot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UptimeRobot | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 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.