Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at OpenObserve. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from OpenObserve on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
OpenObserve has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at OpenObserve” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at OpenObserve | Found at OpenObserve, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pydanticpydantic.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Pydantic | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 74/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Sentrysentry.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sentry | 74/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 73/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Sumo Logicsumologic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sumo Logic | 70/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Pulseticpulsetic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pulsetic | 65/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| New Relicnewrelic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to New Relic | 57/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Metorometoro.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Metoro | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Netdatanetdata.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Netdata | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| OnlineOrNotonlineornot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OnlineOrNot | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Dash0dash0.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dash0 | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Splunksplunk.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Splunk | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 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.