Comparisons
Agent governance,
scored against the evidence.
Each comparison scores capability depth 0–5 against vendor public documentation and publishes every source behind it. The rows we lose are on the page too.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Aembit→Aembit gives an agent a cryptographically attested identity, mints a short-lived credential for the resource it is reaching for, and injects that credential into the request — so the agent never holds a standing secret, and the human driving it rides along in the policy decision. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the four rows that come out level and the two Aembit wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Airia→Airia is where an enterprise builds its agents, and the same platform governs them as they run. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the rows Airia wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Astrix Security→Astrix connects to your environment without an agent or a proxy and returns an inventory of the AI agents, MCP servers, machine identities and secrets already running in it, each mapped to a responsible human owner. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the four rows that come out level and the one Astrix wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Entro Security→Entro finds every secret and non-human identity in your estate, attributes each one to a human owner, and now governs the AI agents that use them. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the three rows Entro wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Eve Security→Eve Security sits between your agents and your critical systems and adjudicates every call before it lands. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the rows Eve Security wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Highflame→Highflame gives every agent a verifiable credential and checks every action it takes against one policy before the action lands. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the four rows Highflame wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Keycard→Keycard gives agents their own identity and hands them short-lived, task-scoped credentials instead of static keys, with a Cedar policy evaluated before anything is issued. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the five rows that come out level and the one Keycard wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Lasso Security→Lasso Security inspects every prompt, response and tool call crossing your AI gateway and blocks the dangerous ones inline. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the three rows Lasso wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Microsoft Agent Governance→Microsoft assembles agent governance from four products. This page scores that stack across 28 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the rows Microsoft wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Noma Security→Noma discovers the AI stack and defends it at runtime, with conformance to an open runtime-security standard to back it. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the rows Noma wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Oasis Security→Oasis Security inventories every non-human identity in your estate, rotates and retires the credentials behind them, and now reads an agent's intent to decide what it may reach. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the three rows Oasis wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Obsidian Security→Obsidian discovers agents without installing anything, maps each one to an owner, and blocks risky executions inline when the AI platform calls out to it. The verdict arrives when a platform asks for one, and it has two answers. Agen decides in the path of the action itself, on any agent, with five.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Onyx Security→Onyx discovers the AI running across an enterprise and enforces policy inline on what it finds — blocking, masking, steering or escalating an action at the moment it would execute. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the seven rows that come out level, and the two rows Onyx wins.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Prompt Security→Prompt Security sits between your people and the AI they use — in the browser, on the endpoint, and in front of the MCP servers your agents call. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the three rows Prompt Security wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Straiker→Straiker red-teams your agents before they ship and blocks attacks against them once they run. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the three rows Straiker wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Ultra Security→Ultra runs on the host as a proxy between agents and the MCP tools they call, enforcing policy inline before a call reaches its server. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, the six rows that come out level, and the row Ultra wins.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs WitnessAI→WitnessAI governs AI from the network path. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the rows WitnessAI wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Zenity→Zenity reviews an agent before it runs and enforces on the platforms it integrates with. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the rows Zenity wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Aegis Security→Aegis finds AI agents passively and enforces policy on the calls routed through its proxy. This page scores that architecture against Agen.co on 14 capabilities, from eight Aegis sources, and prints the row Aegis wins and the three it ties.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Gray Swan→Gray Swan red-teams AI systems before they ship and filters their model traffic once they run. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the three rows Gray Swan wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Lema→Lema governs the AI your vendors bring in. Agen governs what your own agents do. This page scores both across 14 capabilities — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the rows Lema wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Lumia→Lumia controls AI use by inspecting the traffic it generates. This page scores that approach across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the ties, and the row Lumia wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs QuilrAI→QuilrAI governs agents from the call path: an LLM gateway, an MCP gateway and an agent on the device. This page scores that architecture across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder and the rows QuilrAI wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Runlayer→Runlayer routes employee AI tools through an MCP gateway, scans every tool call it brokers, and finds unmanaged MCP servers on managed devices. This page scores that architecture against Agen.co across 15 capabilities, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the five rows that come out level and the one Runlayer wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Solo.io→Solo.io puts agent, tool and model traffic through agentgateway and its ambient mesh, and governs every request that crosses them in depth. This page scores that architecture against Agen.co across 16 capabilities, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the four rows that come out level and the two Solo.io wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Virtue AI→Virtue AI red-teams agents before they ship and blocks unsafe tool calls once they run. What its documentation never names is the person who owns the agent making the call. This page scores that architecture across 15 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co — with the sources, the scoring ladder, and the three rows Virtue AI wins all on the page.
- Capability comparisonAgen.co vs Wiz→Wiz brings AI security into the cloud platform many security teams already run: AI-SPM, an AI bill of materials, and runtime detection through Wiz Defend. This page scores that approach across 16 capabilities against the same capabilities in Agen.co, with the sources, the scoring ladder, the ties and the four rows Wiz wins all on the page.
Comparing something we haven't scored?
Tell us who is on your shortlist. We will score them against the same ladder and show you the worksheet.