Transparency alternatives to OpenPanel
Other Web analytics vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at OpenPanel. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from OpenPanel on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
OpenPanel has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at OpenPanel” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at OpenPanel | Found at OpenPanel, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contentsquarecontentsquare.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Contentsquare | 61/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +3 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | Compare |
| PostHogposthog.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PostHog | 78/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Amplitudeamplitude.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Amplitude | 74/100 | 5 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| FullStoryfullstory.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FullStory | 57/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | Compare |
| Mixpanelmixpanel.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mixpanel | 78/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Umamiumami.isSee also Transparency alternatives to Umami | 57/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Fathom Analyticsusefathom.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Fathom Analytics | 52/100 | 4 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Swetrixswetrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Swetrix | 61/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Rybbitrybbit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rybbit | 57/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Matomomatomo.orgSee also Transparency alternatives to Matomo | 52/100 | 3 Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Mouseflowmouseflow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mouseflow | 48/100 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Plausibleplausible.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Plausible | 48/100 | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Public pricing, 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.