Transparency alternatives to StrongDM
Other Privileged access management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at StrongDM. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from StrongDM on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
StrongDM has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at StrongDM” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at StrongDM | Found at StrongDM, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devolutionsdevolutions.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Devolutions | 70/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Dopplerdoppler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Doppler | 83/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Tailscaletailscale.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Tailscale | 70/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| GitGuardiangitguardian.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GitGuardian | 52/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Infisicalinfisical.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Infisical | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Phasephase.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Phase | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Delineadelinea.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Delinea | 65/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| C1c1.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to C1 | 61/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| SailPointsailpoint.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SailPoint | 61/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Twingatetwingate.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Twingate | 57/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 3 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| NordLayernordlayer.comSee also Transparency alternatives to NordLayer | 48/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Netwrixnetwrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Netwrix | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 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.