Transparency alternatives to Swit
Other Project management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Swit. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 75 that differ from Swit on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Swit has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Swit” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Swit | Found at Swit, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airtableairtable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Airtable | 91/100 | 10 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +7 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Smartsheetsmartsheet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Smartsheet | 91/100 | 10 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +7 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| monday.commonday.comSee also Transparency alternatives to monday.com | 74/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Miromiro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Miro | 70/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Teamworkteamwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Teamwork | 57/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Linearlinear.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Linear | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Oraora.pmSee also Transparency alternatives to Ora | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Plutioplutio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Plutio | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Breezebreeze.pmSee also Transparency alternatives to Breeze | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ClickUpclickup.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ClickUp | 58/100 | 5 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Edworkingedworking.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Edworking | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| BigTimebigtime.netSee also Transparency alternatives to BigTime | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 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.