Transparency alternatives to Global App Testing
Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Global App Testing. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Global App Testing on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Global App Testing has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Global App Testing” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Global App Testing | Found at Global App Testing, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cypresscypress.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypress | 65/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 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 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| PractiTestpractitest.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PractiTest | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Replicated Compatibility Matrixreplicated.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix | 52/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| Kobitonkobiton.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kobiton | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ACCELQaccelq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ACCELQ | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Horizonthetestmart.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Horizon | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Endtestendtest.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Endtest | 48/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Katalonkatalon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Katalon | 48/100 | 1 Status page with history | nothing | Compare |
| Rainforest QArainforestqa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rainforest QA | 39/100 | 1 Status page with history | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Allure TestOpsqameta.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Allure TestOps | 30/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | 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.