Transparency alternatives to Panther
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Panther. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Panther on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Panther has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Panther” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Panther | Found at Panther, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huntresshuntress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Huntress | 57/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Expelexpel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Expel | 61/100 | 4 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 43/100 | 4 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | Compare |
| Trend Microtrendmicro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro | 48/100 | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Corelightcorelight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corelight | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 2 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list | Compare |
| Corocoro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Coro | 30/100 | 2 Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Anvilogicanvilogic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anvilogic | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Arctic Wolfarcticwolf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Arctic Wolf | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Atomicorp Atomic OSSECatomicorp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Huntershunters.securitySee also Transparency alternatives to Hunters | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +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.