Transparency alternatives to LogRocket
Other Web analytics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at LogRocket. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 31 that differ from LogRocket on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
LogRocket has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at LogRocket” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at LogRocket | Found at LogRocket, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PostHogposthog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PostHog | 78/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Mixpanelmixpanel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixpanel | 78/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Amplitudeamplitude.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Amplitude | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Plausibleplausible.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Plausible | 48/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, +2 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Contentsquarecontentsquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contentsquare | 61/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Swetrixswetrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Swetrix | 61/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| FullStoryfullstory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FullStory | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Mouseflowmouseflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mouseflow | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| TelemetryDecktelemetrydeck.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TelemetryDeck | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named | Compare |
| Rybbitrybbit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rybbit | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Umamiumami.isSee also Transparency alternatives to Umami | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Fathom Analyticsusefathom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fathom Analytics | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Status page with history | 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.