Agentic Index
Mindgard vs Noma Security (2026)
Both secure AI systems and they approach from opposite postures, at 9 and 8.5 of 14. That verdict is the Agentic Index coverage score, graded from each vendor's own published materials.
Mindgard is attacker aligned: reconnaissance maps the production attack surface including guardrails, system prompts, tools and shadow AI, then thousands of MITRE ATLAS and OWASP mapped attacks run continuously against the complete system. Noma is defender aligned, with posture management, tool level Agent Access Control across agents and MCP servers and runtime detection across prompts, tool calls and agent to agent traffic. Mindgard tells you how you would be broken into; Noma stops it happening, and mature programmes want both.
On the Agentic Index AI SOC ranking, neither Mindgard nor Noma Security clears the bar, which asks for all five investigation loop capabilities documented in full. Neither documents human oversight and guardrails in full. 24 of the 94 vendors in the lane clear it. See the AI SOC ranking
This comparison is published by Agentic Index, an independent agentic AI vendor research platform. Mindgard and Noma Security are each graded against the same 14 capability Agentic Index taxonomy, from the vendor's own public materials under the Agentic Index verification standard, alongside 969 researched vendors. No vendor pays for placement and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Choose Mindgard if
- Documented coverage is slightly broader and knowing your real attack surface comes first.
- Continuous red teaming against the complete system, not just the model, is the test you need.
- Mapping to MITRE ATLAS and OWASP gives your reporting a recognized structure.
Choose Noma Security if
- You already know your exposure and now need to control it at the tool level.
- Runtime detection across prompts, tool calls and agent to agent traffic is the coverage you need.
- Posture management as an ongoing practice is the operating model you want.
| At a glance | Mindgard | Noma Security |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Security / SOC agent | Security / SOC agent |
| Entry price | Contact sales | Contact sales |
| Free / trial | Not published | Not published |
| Pricing confidence | contact only | contact only |
| Feature | M Mindgard |
N Noma Security |
|---|---|---|
| Action & orchestration | ||
|
Integrations & Tool Calling Ability to connect agents to real systems through native integrations, OAuth-authenticated actions, custom tools, APIs, webhooks, or MCP-compatible tools. |
Full / Explicit | Full / Explicit |
|
Workflow Orchestration Ability to sequence, branch, retry, route, and combine deterministic workflow nodes with autonomous agent steps. |
Full / Explicit | Full / Explicit |
|
Triggers & Channel Coverage How agents wake up and where they work: schedules, webhooks, message events, CRM events, inbox events, chat, email, voice, and collaboration tools. |
Full / Explicit | Full / Explicit |
| Knowledge & context | ||
|
Knowledge Grounding & RAG Ability to ground agent behavior in company data through document ingestion, retrieval, external knowledge APIs, semantic search, or RAG layers. |
Partial | Partial |
|
Memory & State Persistence Ability to persist context across a run, conversation, workflow, user, team, or longer-term memory layer. |
Partial | Partial |
| Control & trust | ||
|
Human Oversight & Guardrails Approval steps, consent checkpoints, escalation rules, structured guardrails, policy constraints, and pause/resume controls. |
Partial | Partial |
|
Security, Identity & Governance RBAC, SSO, auditability, encryption, least-privilege tool access, compliance posture, and data handling policy. |
Full / Explicit | Full / Explicit |
|
Observability & Auditability Traces, logs, execution histories, metrics, audit events, and debugging detail for production agent behavior. |
Full / Explicit | Full / Explicit |
|
Deployment & Data Residency Deployment modes and options, including SaaS, dedicated cloud, VPC, on-prem, hybrid, local runtime, and self-hosting. |
Partial | Partial |
| Solution readiness | ||
|
Prebuilt Agents, Templates & Packs Ready-made workflows, packaged employees, templates, blueprints, industry solutions, and role-specific agents that reduce time-to-value. |
Partial | Partial |
| Platform extensibility | ||
|
Model Flexibility & Routing Ability to work across multiple foundation models, route tasks to different models, or let buyers bring their own providers and keys. |
No / Not documented | No / Not documented |
|
APIs, SDKs & MCP Extensibility Composability layer: stable APIs, SDKs, MCP tool consumption/serving, custom tools, and integration into internal systems. |
Full / Explicit | Partial |
|
Testing, Debugging & Optimization Testing, debugging, scoring, retries, fallbacks, quality gates, and optimization loops for improving agent workflows before and after deployment. |
Partial | Partial |
| Specialist automation | ||
|
Browser & Computer Use Browser, desktop, or remote/local computer control for workflows that cannot be handled through stable APIs alone. |
No / Not documented | No / Not documented |
Pricing snapshot
Sourced from the Index pricing dataset · open each vendor's profile for full detail.
| Pricing | M Mindgard |
N Noma Security |
|---|---|---|
|
Entry price Lowest public entry point |
Contact sales | Contact sales |
|
Pricing confidence How public the numbers are |
Contact only | Contact only |
|
Billing Primary billing axis |
scope of AI models, agents, and applications under continuous testing, plus expert services | number of agents secured, MCP servers, integrations, deployment scope |
|
Variable cost Workload / overage exposure |
Medium variable cost | Medium variable cost |
|
Free tier / trial Try before you buy |
No free tier
|
No free tier
|
|
Buying motion Self-serve vs sales call |
Sales call | Sales call |
More comparisons with Mindgard or Noma Security
Other matchups in security and SOC agents
Not the pairing you were after? These compare a different set of security and SOC agents on the same 14 capabilities.