Transparency alternatives to Miro
Other Project management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Miro. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 77 that differ from Miro on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Miro has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Miro” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Miro | Found at Miro, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airtableairtable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airtable | 91/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Smartsheetsmartsheet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartsheet | 91/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Linearlinear.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Linear | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| OpenProjectopenproject.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to OpenProject | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Teamworkteamwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teamwork | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Stackfieldstackfield.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stackfield | 52/100 | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Niftyniftypm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nifty | 43/100 | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | Compare |
| Oraora.pmSee also Transparency alternatives to Ora | 70/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Plutioplutio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Plutio | 70/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Breezebreeze.pmSee also Transparency alternatives to Breeze | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| monday.commonday.comSee also Transparency alternatives to monday.com | 61/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Edworkingedworking.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Edworking | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +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.