Transparency alternatives to Corelight
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Corelight. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Corelight on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Corelight has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Corelight” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Corelight | Found at Corelight, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expelexpel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Expel | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Trend Microtrendmicro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Pantherpanther.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Panther | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Huntresshuntress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Huntress | 57/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Atomicorp Atomic OSSECatomicorp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC | 26/100 | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Securonixsecuronix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Securonix | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| WithSecurewithsecure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WithSecure | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 2 Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Corocoro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Coro | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Cynetcynet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cynet | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Certifications named | 2 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.