Transparency alternatives to Trend Micro
Other SIEM and security operations vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Trend Micro. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 38 that differ from Trend Micro on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Trend Micro has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Trend Micro” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Trend Micro | Found at Trend Micro, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expelexpel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Expel | 61/100 | 4 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | Compare |
| Huntresshuntress.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Huntress | 57/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Corelightcorelight.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Corelight | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Ontinueontinue.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Ontinue | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Pantherpanther.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Panther | 43/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Gigamongigamon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Gigamon | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing | Compare |
| Securonixsecuronix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Securonix | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| WithSecurewithsecure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to WithSecure | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Blumirablumira.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Blumira | 30/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Arctic Wolfarcticwolf.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Arctic Wolf | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Huntershunters.securitySee also Transparency alternatives to Hunters | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | Compare |
| Deepwatchdeepwatch.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deepwatch | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 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.