Transparency alternatives to Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC 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 Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC | Found at Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC, 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 Public pricing | Compare |
| Huntresshuntress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Huntress | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Corocoro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Coro | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Trend Microtrendmicro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 1 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 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Corelightcorelight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corelight | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Securonixsecuronix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Securonix | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| WithSecurewithsecure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WithSecure | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Status page with history | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Cynetcynet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cynet | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 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.