Transparency alternatives to Fathom Analytics
Other Web analytics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Fathom Analytics. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Fathom Analytics on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Fathom Analytics has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Fathom Analytics” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Fathom Analytics | Found at Fathom Analytics, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FullStoryfullstory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FullStory | 57/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Mixpanelmixpanel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixpanel | 78/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| PostHogposthog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PostHog | 78/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Amplitudeamplitude.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Amplitude | 74/100 | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Contentsquarecontentsquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contentsquare | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Uptime SLA with a figure, +1 | 2 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| TelemetryDecktelemetrydeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TelemetryDeck | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Public pricing, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| Parse.lyparse.lySee also Transparency alternatives to Parse.ly | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| Chartbeatchartbeat.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Chartbeat | 30/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | Compare |
| Quantcastquantcast.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Quantcast | 26/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +3 | Compare |
| Matomomatomo.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Matomo | 52/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Mouseflowmouseflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mouseflow | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Plausibleplausible.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Plausible | 48/100 | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | 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.