Transparency alternatives to Testsigma
Other Test automation vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Testsigma. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 44 that differ from Testsigma on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Testsigma has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at Testsigma” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Testsigma | Found at Testsigma, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cypresscypress.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Cypress | 65/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Applitoolsapplitools.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Applitools | 57/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Replicated Compatibility Matrixreplicated.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Replicated Compatibility Matrix | 52/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Endtestendtest.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Endtest | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| PractiTestpractitest.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PractiTest | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| RadViewradview.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RadView | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Katalonkatalon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Katalon | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Kobitonkobiton.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Kobiton | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Global App Testingglobalapptesting.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Global App Testing | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Testimtestim.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Testim | 39/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Functionizefunctionize.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Functionize | 35/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Allure TestOpsqameta.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Allure TestOps | 30/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 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.