Transparency alternatives to JFrog
Other Vulnerability management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at JFrog. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from JFrog on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
JFrog has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at JFrog” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at JFrog | Found at JFrog, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invictiinvicti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Invicti | 83/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | nothing | Compare |
| Snyksnyk.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snyk | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Rapid7rapid7.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rapid7 | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Intruderintruder.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Intruder | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| SonarSourcesonarsource.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SonarSource | 57/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Holm Securityholmsecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Holm Security | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Veracodeveracode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Veracode | 43/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 | 3 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Sucurisucuri.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Sucuri | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Mendmend.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mend | 50/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | nothing | Compare |
| Probelyprobely.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Probely | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Semgrepsemgrep.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Semgrep | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Patchstackpatchstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Patchstack | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 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.