Transparency alternatives to Semgrep
Other Vulnerability management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Semgrep. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Semgrep on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Semgrep has 6 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, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Semgrep” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Semgrep | Found at Semgrep, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invictiinvicti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Invicti | 83/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Rapid7rapid7.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rapid7 | 70/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, +2 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Snyksnyk.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snyk | 61/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Sucurisucuri.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Sucuri | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Intruderintruder.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Intruder | 57/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Holm Securityholmsecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Holm Security | 52/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Arnicaarnica.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Arnica | 48/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| SonarSourcesonarsource.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SonarSource | 48/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Detectifydetectify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Detectify | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Status page with history | Compare |
| Patchstackpatchstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Patchstack | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Veracodeveracode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Veracode | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Wizwiz.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Wiz | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 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.