Transparency alternatives to Arnica
Other Vulnerability management vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Arnica does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 39 that differ from Arnica on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Arnica has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “publishes and Arnica does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and Arnica does not | Arnica publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invictiinvicti.com | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Snyksnyk.io | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Rapid7rapid7.com | 70/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Wizwiz.io | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Intruderintruder.io | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Sucurisucuri.net | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Semgrepsemgrep.dev | 48/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Detectifydetectify.com | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Subprocessor list, Data location stated | Compare |
| Veracodeveracode.com | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Probelyprobely.com | 35/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| StackHawkstackhawk.com | 30/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Nucleus Securitynucleussec.com | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +1 | 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.