Transparency alternatives to Pangolin
Other Network connectivity vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Pangolin does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
6 shown of 6 that differ from Pangolin on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pangolin has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “publishes and Pangolin does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Pangolin does not | Pangolin publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ngrokngrok.com | 70/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ZeroTier Centralzerotier.com | 39/100 | 1 Certifications named | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Netmakernetmaker.io | 17/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 5 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | Compare |
| Packetriotpacketriot.com | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | Compare |
| Pinggypinggy.io | 9/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 6 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | Compare |
| localhost.runlocalhost.run | 0/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 7 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +4 | 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.