Transparency alternatives to Arctic Wolf
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Arctic Wolf. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Arctic Wolf on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Arctic Wolf has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, 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 Arctic Wolf” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Arctic Wolf | Found at Arctic Wolf, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expelexpel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Expel | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Huntresshuntress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Huntress | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Trend Microtrendmicro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Pantherpanther.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Panther | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Corocoro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Coro | 30/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Securonixsecuronix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Securonix | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Corelightcorelight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corelight | 30/100 | 2 Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cynetcynet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cynet | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Anvilogicanvilogic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anvilogic | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.