Transparency alternatives to Pinggy
Other Network connectivity vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Pinggy does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
6 shown of 6 that differ from Pinggy on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Pinggy has 11 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “publishes and Pinggy does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Pinggy does not | Pinggy publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ngrokngrok.com | 70/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | nothing | Compare |
| Pangolinpangolin.net | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| ZeroTier Centralzerotier.com | 39/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Netmakernetmaker.io | 17/100 | 1 Public pricing | nothing | Compare |
| Packetriotpacketriot.com | 9/100 | 1 Public pricing | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| localhost.runlocalhost.run | 0/100 | nothing we found there and not here | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.