Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix
Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Replicated Compatibility Matrix. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from Replicated Compatibility Matrix on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Replicated Compatibility Matrix has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Replicated Compatibility Matrix” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Replicated Compatibility Matrix | Found at Replicated Compatibility Matrix, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PractiTestpractitest.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PractiTest | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 4 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Cypresscypress.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypress | 65/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Horizonthetestmart.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Horizon | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| ACCELQaccelq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ACCELQ | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Testsigmatestsigma.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Testsigma | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Endtestendtest.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Endtest | 48/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Testimtestim.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Testim | 39/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Kobitonkobiton.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kobiton | 35/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | Compare |
| Xraygetxray.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Xray | 35/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Applauseapplause.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applause | 26/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| RadViewradview.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RadView | 26/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | 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.