Transparency alternatives to Sentry
Other Monitoring and observability vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Sentry. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Sentry on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Sentry has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Sentry” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Sentry | Found at Sentry, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Netdatanetdata.cloudSee also Transparency alternatives to Netdata | 52/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Pingdompingdom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pingdom | 30/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | Compare |
| Sematextsematext.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sematext | 30/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | Compare |
| Honeycombhoneycomb.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Honeycomb | 70/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| OpenObserveopenobserve.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenObserve | 70/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pulseticpulsetic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pulsetic | 65/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Rollbarrollbar.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rollbar | 64/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | Compare |
| Datadogdatadoghq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Datadog | 61/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| New Relicnewrelic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to New Relic | 57/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Sumo Logicsumologic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sumo Logic | 57/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Checklychecklyhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Checkly | 48/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| OnlineOrNotonlineornot.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OnlineOrNot | 43/100 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +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.