# Comp AI vs Hyperproof: privacy compared

| Criterion | Comp AI | Hyperproof |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Grade | F (38/100) | F (31/100) |
| Jurisdiction | United States (Five Eyes) | United States (Five Eyes) |
| Open source | Partial | No |
| No trackers or telemetry | No | No |
| No ads or data sales | Partial | Partial |
| Independent audit | Partial | Partial |
| Transparency report | No | No |
| Tells users about requests | No | No |
| TLS configuration | Yes | Yes |
| Security headers | Partial | Yes |
| Modern web standards | Not tested yet | Not tested yet |

**Comp AI.** Comp AI scores 38 out of 100 (grade F) on the compliance automation criteria. It meets 1 of 8 criteria: TLS configuration. It partly meets open source, no ads or data sales, independent audit and security headers. It does not meet no trackers or telemetry, transparency report and tells users about requests. It is based in the United States: Five Eyes member; subject to the US CLOUD Act. Automated tests: SSL Labs grade A and Mozilla HTTP Observatory grade B+.

**Hyperproof.** Hyperproof scores 31 out of 100 (grade F) on the compliance automation criteria. It meets 2 of 8 criteria: TLS configuration and security headers. It partly meets no ads or data sales and independent audit. It does not meet open source, no trackers or telemetry, transparency report and tells users about requests. It is based in the United States: Five Eyes member; subject to the US CLOUD Act. Automated tests: SSL Labs grade A+ and Mozilla HTTP Observatory grade A+.

Source: https://privacyratings.com/compare/compliance-automation/comp-ai-vs-hyperproof/