Transparency alternatives to Leantime
Other Project management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Leantime. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 73 that differ from Leantime on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Leantime has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Leantime” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Leantime | Found at Leantime, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airtableairtable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airtable | 91/100 | 9 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +6 | nothing | Compare |
| Smartsheetsmartsheet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartsheet | 91/100 | 9 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +6 | nothing | Compare |
| monday.commonday.comSee also Transparency alternatives to monday.com | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Linearlinear.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Linear | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Miromiro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Miro | 70/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Teamworkteamwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teamwork | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Oraora.pmSee also Transparency alternatives to Ora | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Plutioplutio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Plutio | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Breezebreeze.pmSee also Transparency alternatives to Breeze | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Edworkingedworking.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Edworking | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Stackfieldstackfield.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stackfield | 52/100 | 5 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| OpenProjectopenproject.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenProject | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 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.