Transparency alternatives to Deepwatch
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Deepwatch. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 37 that differ from Deepwatch on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Deepwatch has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, 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, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Deepwatch” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Deepwatch | Found at Deepwatch, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expelexpel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Expel | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Huntresshuntress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Huntress | 57/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Trend Microtrendmicro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 43/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | 2 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Corocoro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Coro | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 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 | nothing | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Corelightcorelight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corelight | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Securonixsecuronix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Securonix | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | nothing | Compare |
| Cynetcynet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cynet | 30/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | nothing | Compare |
| Upstream Securityupstream.autoSee also Transparency alternatives to Upstream Security | 30/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | nothing | 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.