Transparency alternatives to Sinequa
Other Search and vector infrastructure vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Sinequa. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Sinequa on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Sinequa has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Sinequa” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Sinequa | Found at Sinequa, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vectaravectara.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Vectara | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Chromatrychroma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Chroma | 74/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Pineconepinecone.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Pinecone | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Parallelparallel.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Parallel | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Addsearchaddsearch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Addsearch | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 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 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Vespavespa.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Vespa | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data location stated, 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 Data location stated, 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 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Zillizzilliz.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Zilliz | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Gleanglean.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Glean | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Hebbiahebbia.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Hebbia | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.