Transparency alternatives to Opal
Other Privileged access management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Opal. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Opal on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Opal has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Opal” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Opal | Found at Opal, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delineadelinea.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Delinea | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| C1c1.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to C1 | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Dopplerdoppler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Doppler | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Devolutionsdevolutions.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Devolutions | 70/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Tailscaletailscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tailscale | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Twingatetwingate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Twingate | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| StrongDMstrongdm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to StrongDM | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Akeylessakeyless.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Akeyless | 43/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| SailPointsailpoint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SailPoint | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Infisicalinfisical.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infisical | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Indentindent.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Indent | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| GitGuardiangitguardian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitGuardian | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | 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.