Transparency alternatives to Admin By Request
Other Privileged access management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Admin By Request. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 39 that differ from Admin By Request on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Admin By Request has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Admin By Request” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Admin By Request | Found at Admin By Request, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dopplerdoppler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Doppler | 83/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Devolutionsdevolutions.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Devolutions | 70/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Tailscaletailscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tailscale | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Delineadelinea.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Delinea | 65/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| C1c1.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to C1 | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Twingatetwingate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Twingate | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| GitGuardiangitguardian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitGuardian | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Infisicalinfisical.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infisical | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| NordLayernordlayer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NordLayer | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Phasephase.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Phase | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Akeylessakeyless.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Akeyless | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Termius Vaulttermius.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Termius Vault | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, 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.