Transparency alternatives to OpenProject
Other Project management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at OpenProject. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 77 that differ from OpenProject on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
OpenProject has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent. The column “Found there, not found at OpenProject” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at OpenProject | Found at OpenProject, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airtableairtable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airtable | 91/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Smartsheetsmartsheet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartsheet | 91/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Miromiro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Miro | 70/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| BigTimebigtime.netSee also Transparency alternatives to BigTime | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 5 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | Compare |
| monday.commonday.comSee also Transparency alternatives to monday.com | 61/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Aha!aha.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Aha! | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | Compare |
| Niftyniftypm.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nifty | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Linearlinear.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Linear | 70/100 | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Teamworkteamwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teamwork | 57/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Stackfieldstackfield.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Stackfield | 52/100 | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Asanaasana.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Asana | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Hivehive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hive | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 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.