Transparency alternatives to Cypress
Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Cypress. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Cypress on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Cypress has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Cypress” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Cypress | Found at Cypress, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Replicated Compatibility Matrixreplicated.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix | 52/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Testsigmatestsigma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Testsigma | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| ACCELQaccelq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ACCELQ | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Horizonthetestmart.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Horizon | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Allure TestOpsqameta.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Allure TestOps | 30/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Applauseapplause.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applause | 26/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Leapworkleapwork.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Leapwork | 17/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 7 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | Compare |
| Xraygetxray.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Xray | 13/100 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 7 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | Compare |
| Testliotestlio.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Testlio | 9/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 7 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | Compare |
| Katalonkatalon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Katalon | 48/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Global App Testingglobalapptesting.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Global App Testing | 39/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.