SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to mabl

Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at mabl. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 44 that differ from mabl on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

mabl has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at mabl” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at mablFound at mabl, not found there
Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools 57/100 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Cypresscypress.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypress 65/100 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 nothing Compare
PractiTestpractitest.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PractiTest 52/100 5 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Replicated Compatibility Matrixreplicated.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix 52/100 5 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 nothing Compare
Testsigmatestsigma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Testsigma 48/100 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 1 Data location stated Compare
Horizonthetestmart.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Horizon 52/100 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 nothing Compare
Katalonkatalon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Katalon 48/100 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 nothing Compare
ACCELQaccelq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ACCELQ 39/100 4 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 1 Data location stated Compare
Allure TestOpsqameta.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Allure TestOps 30/100 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 1 Data location stated Compare
Endtestendtest.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Endtest 48/100 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Certifications named nothing Compare
Global App Testingglobalapptesting.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Global App Testing 39/100 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact nothing Compare
Rainforest QArainforestqa.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rainforest QA 39/100 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact 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.