Transparency alternatives to Parseable
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Parseable. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Parseable on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Parseable has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Parseable” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Parseable | Found at Parseable, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 74/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Sentrysentry.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sentry | 74/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Sumo Logicsumologic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sumo Logic | 70/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Netdatanetdata.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Netdata | 52/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Honeycombhoneycomb.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Honeycomb | 70/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| OpenObserveopenobserve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve | 70/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 64/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| New Relicnewrelic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to New Relic | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Metorometoro.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Metoro | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| OneUptimeoneuptime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneUptime | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Checklychecklyhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Checkly | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Pydanticpydantic.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Pydantic | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, 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.