Transparency alternatives to Huntress
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Huntress. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Huntress on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Huntress has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Huntress” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Huntress | Found at Huntress, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expelexpel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Expel | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| Trend Microtrendmicro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Pantherpanther.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Panther | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Securonixsecuronix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Securonix | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| WithSecurewithsecure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WithSecure | 35/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Corocoro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Coro | 30/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Cynetcynet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cynet | 30/100 | 1 Data processing agreement | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Arctic Wolfarcticwolf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Arctic Wolf | 26/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Atomicorp Atomic OSSECatomicorp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC | 26/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 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.