Transparency alternatives to Leapwork
Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Leapwork. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Leapwork on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Leapwork has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, 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. The column “Found there, not found at Leapwork” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Leapwork | Found at Leapwork, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cypresscypress.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypress | 65/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +4 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Replicated Compatibility Matrixreplicated.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix | 52/100 | 6 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Endtestendtest.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Endtest | 48/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Katalonkatalon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Katalon | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Kobitonkobiton.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kobiton | 43/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| PractiTestpractitest.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PractiTest | 39/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Testsigmatestsigma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Testsigma | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools | 43/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Global App Testingglobalapptesting.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Global App Testing | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Rainforest QArainforestqa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rainforest QA | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| Allure TestOpsqameta.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Allure TestOps | 30/100 | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Data processing agreement | Compare |
| ACCELQaccelq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ACCELQ | 39/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | 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.