Transparency alternatives to Logz.io
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Logz.io. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Logz.io on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Logz.io has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, 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 “Found there, not found at Logz.io” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Logz.io | Found at Logz.io, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentrysentry.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sentry | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Honeycombhoneycomb.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Honeycomb | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| OpenObserveopenobserve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Sumo Logicsumologic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sumo Logic | 70/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 64/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Chronospherechronosphere.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Chronosphere | 35/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Pulseticpulsetic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pulsetic | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Better Stackbetterstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Better Stack | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| New Relicnewrelic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to New Relic | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| UptimeRobotuptimerobot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UptimeRobot | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Metorometoro.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Metoro | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 Status page with history | 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.