Transparency alternatives to Pingdom
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Pingdom. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Pingdom on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pingdom has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Pingdom” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Pingdom | Found at Pingdom, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentrysentry.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sentry | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Honeycombhoneycomb.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Honeycomb | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| OpenObserveopenobserve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 1 Named privacy contact | 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, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| New Relicnewrelic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to New Relic | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 64/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Better Stackbetterstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Better Stack | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, 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 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Sumo Logicsumologic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sumo Logic | 57/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| UptimeRobotuptimerobot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UptimeRobot | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| OneUptimeoneuptime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneUptime | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, 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.