Transparency alternatives to Kimai
Other Workforce and shift management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Kimai. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 83 that differ from Kimai on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Kimai has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Kimai” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Kimai | Found at Kimai, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agendrixagendrix.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Agendrix | 70/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +3 | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Timelytimelyapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Timely | 65/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| actiTIMEactitime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to actiTIME | 48/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| DeskTimedesktime.comSee also Transparency alternatives to DeskTime | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 3 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Deputydeputy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Deputy | 48/100 | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| TimeCamptimecamp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to TimeCamp | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| RotaCloudrotacloud.comSee also Transparency alternatives to RotaCloud | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Tempotempo.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Tempo | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Time Doctortimedoctor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Time Doctor | 43/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Beebolebeebole.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Beebole | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Hubstaffhubstaff.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Hubstaff | 39/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Lightning Boltlightning-bolt.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Lightning Bolt | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 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.