Transparency alternatives to Devolutions
Other Privileged access management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Devolutions. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Devolutions on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Devolutions has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at Devolutions” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Devolutions | Found at Devolutions, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tailscaletailscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tailscale | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| C1c1.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to C1 | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| StrongDMstrongdm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to StrongDM | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Akeylessakeyless.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Akeyless | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Dopplerdoppler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Doppler | 83/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Delineadelinea.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Delinea | 65/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| GitGuardiangitguardian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitGuardian | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| NordLayernordlayer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NordLayer | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Cyolocyolo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cyolo | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| SailPointsailpoint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SailPoint | 61/100 | 1 Certifications named | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Twingatetwingate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Twingate | 57/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Infisicalinfisical.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infisical | 48/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, 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.