Transparency alternatives to Todyl
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Todyl. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Todyl on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Todyl has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Todyl” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Todyl | Found at Todyl, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expelexpel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Expel | 61/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +4 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Trend Microtrendmicro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro | 48/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Huntresshuntress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Huntress | 57/100 | 5 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Pantherpanther.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Panther | 43/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 5 Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Corocoro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Coro | 30/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Cynetcynet.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Cynet | 30/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Anvilogicanvilogic.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Anvilogic | 26/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Atomicorp Atomic OSSECatomicorp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Atomicorp Atomic OSSEC | 26/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Uptycsuptycs.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Uptycs | 26/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 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.