Transparency alternatives to TP-Link Omada
Other Network monitoring vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at TP-Link Omada. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 35 that differ from TP-Link Omada on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
TP-Link Omada has 9 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, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at TP-Link Omada” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at TP-Link Omada | Found at TP-Link Omada, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kentikkentik.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kentik | 70/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Auvikauvik.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Auvik | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| LogicMonitorlogicmonitor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LogicMonitor | 39/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Paesslerpaessler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Paessler | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Catchpointcatchpoint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Catchpoint | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Zscalerzscaler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zscaler | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| WatchGuardwatchguard.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WatchGuard | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Ubiquitiui.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ubiquiti | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Cambiumcambiumnetworks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cambium | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Nagiosnagios.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nagios | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Netgear Insightnetgear.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Netgear Insight | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Palo Alto Networkspaloaltonetworks.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Palo Alto Networks | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.