Transparency alternatives to Pulsetic
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Pulsetic. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 46 that differ from Pulsetic on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pulsetic has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Pulsetic” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Pulsetic | Found at Pulsetic, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentrysentry.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Sentry | 74/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| OpenObserveopenobserve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve | 70/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| OneUptimeoneuptime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneUptime | 52/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Chronospherechronosphere.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Chronosphere | 35/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 74/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 1 Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 73/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Honeycombhoneycomb.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Honeycomb | 70/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Sumo Logicsumologic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sumo Logic | 70/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Certifications named | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| New Relicnewrelic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to New Relic | 57/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | Compare |
| Metorometoro.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Metoro | 52/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Netdatanetdata.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Netdata | 52/100 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Checklychecklyhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Checkly | 48/100 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, 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.