SaaS Ranking
Menu

GitGuardian: what they publish

gitguardian.com · Privileged access management · checked 2026-10-13

52/100DBand D

Rank 8 of 41 in Privileged access management, where the median is 35.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-13. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

6 days since the newest dated result, 6 since the oldest. 12 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

GitGuardian

gitguardian.com · Privileged access management

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
D 52of 100 Rank 8 of 41

Published commitments4 of 9 found

Measured behaviour2 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-13. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that GitGuardian has no such document.

Where GitGuardian sits in Privileged access management

  1. A0 0%
  2. B3 7%
  3. C4 10%
  4. D6 15%
  5. E11 27%
  6. F17 41%
41 vendors with a score; 2 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of GitGuardian is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What GitGuardian states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

No statement about data location found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://gitguardian.com/security – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://gitguardian.com/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://gitguardian.com/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://gitguardian.com/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://gitguardian.com/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://gitguardian.com/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://gitguardian.com/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Privileged access management: 11 of 41 companies

✗

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

No public status page found.

Checked 3 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 3 addresses we checked
  1. https://status.gitguardian.com/ – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://gitguardian.com/status – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://gitguardian.com.statuspage.io/ – Could not be fetched: fetch failed.

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Status page with history in Privileged access management: 17 of 42 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-13.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://gitguardian.com/ – third-party requests before any interaction: ad.doubleclick.net, ajax.googleapis.com, api.hubapi.com, api.hubspot.com, assets.customer.io, bat.bing.com, bat.bing.net, bzrcdn.openai.com, cdn.iubenda.com, cdn.prod.website-files.com, challenges.cloudflare.com, cs.iubenda.com, customerioforms.com, d3e54v103j8qbb.cloudfront.net, fonts.googleapis.com, fonts.gstatic.com, forms.hscollectedforms.net, forms.hsforms.com, gitguardian.containers.piwik.pro, gitguardian.piwik.pro, googleads.g.doubleclick.net, hubspotonwebflow.com, js.hs-analytics.net, js.hs-banner.com, js.hs-scripts.com, js.hsadspixel.net, js.hscollectedforms.net, js.usemessages.com, region1.analytics.google.com, snap.licdn.com, stats.g.doubleclick.net, www.clickcease.com, www.google.com, www.google.de, www.googletagmanager.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Privileged access management: 1 of 43 companies

✗

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

No commitment to give notice before subprocessors change found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://gitguardian.com/legal/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://gitguardian.com/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://gitguardian.com/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://gitguardian.com/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://gitguardian.com/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://gitguardian.com/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://gitguardian.com/trust/subprocessors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://gitguardian.com/legal/sub-processors – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Privileged access management: 15 of 41 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://gitguardian.com/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://gitguardian.com/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://gitguardian.com/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://gitguardian.com/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://gitguardian.com/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://gitguardian.com/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Privileged access management: 5 of 41 companies

✗

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

No named privacy contact found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-13.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://gitguardian.com/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://gitguardian.com/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://gitguardian.com/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://gitguardian.com/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://gitguardian.com/legal/privacy-notice – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://gitguardian.com/trust/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://gitguardian.com/datenschutz – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Privileged access management: 17 of 41 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 6
✓

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

Published and readable without a login.

Source: https://www.gitguardian.com/legal/data-processing-addendum · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Privileged access management: 12 of 41 companies

✓

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

The actual list is published, not just a promise to keep one.

Source: https://www.gitguardian.com/legal/subprocessors · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Privileged access management: 8 of 41 companies

✓

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

Actual numbers on a public page.

Source: https://www.gitguardian.com/pricing · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Public pricing in Privileged access management: 15 of 40 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

Source: https://gitguardian.com/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Privileged access management: 30 of 43 companies

✓

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

SOC 2 or ISO 27001 named on a public page.

  • Named on that page ISO/IEC 27001 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), PCI DSS (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), SOC 2 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it). The sentence we kept does not carry this finding on its own, so it counts in no list and no figure.
    Show the 3 exact wordings

    PCI DSS CIS NIS2 SOC 2 DORA ISO 27001 SOX GDPR See how GitGuardian supports compliance Works with everything in your stack.

    Read at https://www.gitguardian.com/

    PCI DSS CIS NIS2 SOC 2 DORA ISO 27001 SOX GDPR See how GitGuardian supports compliance Works with everythin

    Read at https://www.gitguardian.com/

    PCI DSS CIS NIS2 SOC 2 DORA ISO 27001 SOX GDPR See how GitGuardian supports compliance Works with everything in your stack

    Read at https://www.gitguardian.com/

Source: https://www.gitguardian.com/ · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: Certifications named in Privileged access management: 21 of 41 companies

✓

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

Served at /.well-known/security.txt.

Source: https://gitguardian.com/.well-known/security.txt · checked 2026-10-13

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Privileged access management: 11 of 43 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-06: 52 of 1002026-10-13: 52 of 100 2026-10-06 2026-10-13
Score over the last 2 runs we measured GitGuardian in: 52 (2026-10-06), 52 (2026-10-13).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

GitGuardian

6 found · 6 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-13.

Investigate 6 open evidence questions
  1. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  2. Status page with history

    Where can we review incident history for the service we will use, and how do we subscribe to incident updates?

    Inspect this check
  3. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  4. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  5. Notice before subprocessors change

    How will you notify us before a subprocessor changes, with how much notice, and what response options apply to our contract?

    Inspect this check
  6. Named privacy contact

    Which privacy contact handles requests for our account, and what escalation path should we use?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.