Transparency alternatives to LanceDB
Other Search and vector infrastructure vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at LanceDB. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from LanceDB on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
LanceDB has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at LanceDB” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at LanceDB | Found at LanceDB, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chromatrychroma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Chroma | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Pineconepinecone.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pinecone | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Parallelparallel.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Parallel | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Vectaravectara.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vectara | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Constructorconstructor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Constructor | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Gleanglean.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Glean | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Hebbiahebbia.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Hebbia | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Voyage AIvoyageai.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Voyage AI | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cludocludo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cludo | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Vespavespa.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Vespa | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Marqomarqo.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Marqo | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Nostonosto.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nosto | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +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.