Transparency alternatives to Offen
Other Web analytics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Offen. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Offen on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Offen has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Offen” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Offen | Found at Offen, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PostHogposthog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PostHog | 78/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +5 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Amplitudeamplitude.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Amplitude | 74/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +5 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Mixpanelmixpanel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixpanel | 78/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Contentsquarecontentsquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contentsquare | 61/100 | 7 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| FullStoryfullstory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FullStory | 57/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Rybbitrybbit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rybbit | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Umamiumami.isSee also Transparency alternatives to Umami | 57/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Matomomatomo.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Matomo | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Swetrixswetrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Swetrix | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Fathom Analyticsusefathom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fathom Analytics | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +2 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Litlyxlitlyx.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Litlyx | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Selineseline.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Seline | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, 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.