Transparency alternatives to C1
Other Privileged access management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at C1. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from C1 on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
C1 has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at C1” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at C1 | Found at C1, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dopplerdoppler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Doppler | 83/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Devolutionsdevolutions.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Devolutions | 70/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Tailscaletailscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tailscale | 70/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| SailPointsailpoint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SailPoint | 61/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Twingatetwingate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Twingate | 57/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| NordLayernordlayer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NordLayer | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 4 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Phasephase.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Phase | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Netwrixnetwrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Netwrix | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Opalopal.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Opal | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | Compare |
| Termius Vaulttermius.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Termius Vault | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Britivebritive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Britive | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +4 | Compare |
| Aponoapono.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Apono | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +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.