Transparency alternatives to New Relic
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at New Relic. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from New Relic on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
New Relic has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at New Relic” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at New Relic | Found at New Relic, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentrysentry.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sentry | 74/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| OpenObserveopenobserve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 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, Certifications named | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Coralogixcoralogix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Coralogix | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 4 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| UptimeRobotuptimerobot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UptimeRobot | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Netdatanetdata.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Netdata | 52/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| OneUptimeoneuptime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneUptime | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Checklychecklyhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Checkly | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Honeycombhoneycomb.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Honeycomb | 70/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pulseticpulsetic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pulsetic | 65/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 64/100 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 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.