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