Transparency alternatives to Ghost Inspector
Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ghost Inspector. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Ghost Inspector on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ghost Inspector has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, 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 Ghost Inspector” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ghost Inspector | Found at Ghost Inspector, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testsigmatestsigma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Testsigma | 48/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Cypresscypress.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypress | 65/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Horizonthetestmart.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Horizon | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Replicated Compatibility Matrixreplicated.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix | 52/100 | 5 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| ACCELQaccelq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ACCELQ | 39/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| PractiTestpractitest.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PractiTest | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Katalonkatalon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Katalon | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Rainforest QArainforestqa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rainforest QA | 39/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Allure TestOpsqameta.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Allure TestOps | 30/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Applauseapplause.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applause | 26/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| testRigortestrigor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to testRigor | 26/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 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.