Transparency alternatives to Allure TestOps
Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Allure TestOps. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Allure TestOps on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Allure TestOps has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Allure TestOps” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Allure TestOps | Found at Allure TestOps, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cypresscypress.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypress | 65/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Testsigmatestsigma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Testsigma | 48/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| PractiTestpractitest.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PractiTest | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Replicated Compatibility Matrixreplicated.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | nothing | Compare |
| Endtestendtest.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Endtest | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Katalonkatalon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Katalon | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Kobitonkobiton.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kobiton | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ACCELQaccelq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ACCELQ | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Horizonthetestmart.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Horizon | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Rainforest QArainforestqa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rainforest QA | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| RadViewradview.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RadView | 26/100 | 2 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +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.