Agentic Index
Noma Security vs Pillar Security (2026)
Noma Security last verified ·Pillar Security last verified
Noma Security and Pillar Security both inventory the customer's agents and MCP servers, red team them and enforce policy at runtime. That verdict is the Agentic Index coverage score, graded from each vendor's own published materials.
Noma routes every discovered agent, server and skill through an approval registry and controls tool level access by runtime context and the person the agent acts for. Pillar maps how tools, prompts and data combine into exploitable paths with RedGraph, runs multi turn and black box attacks, logs every tool call through its guardrails, and can run inside the customer's VPC. Neither has a public price. Choose Noma to approve agents and control their tool access. Choose Pillar for attack path mapping and deployment in your own VPC.
On the Agentic Index AI SOC ranking, neither Noma Security nor Pillar Security clears the bar, which asks for all five investigation loop capabilities documented in full. Noma Security does not document human oversight and guardrails in full; Pillar Security does not document workflow orchestration in full, nor human oversight and guardrails. 25 of the 86 vendors in the lane clear it. See the AI SOC ranking
On the Agentic Index agent infrastructure ranking, neither Noma Security nor Pillar Security clears the bar, which asks for all five production contract capabilities documented in full. Noma Security documents two of the five in full; Pillar Security does not document security and identity governance in full, nor model flexibility and routing. 33 of the 186 vendors in the lane clear it. See the agent infrastructure ranking
This comparison is published by Agentic Index, an independent agentic AI vendor research platform. Noma Security and Pillar 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 1,140 researched vendors. No vendor pays for placement and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Choose Noma Security if
- Every agent and MCP server should be approved, reviewed or blocked in one registry.
- Tool access should follow runtime context and the person behind the request.
- Discovery, approval and tool access should run as one flow.
Choose Pillar Security if
- The platform must run inside your own VPC.
- You want a map of how tools, prompts and data combine into attack paths.
- Black box testing matters alongside multi turn attacks.
| Feature | N Noma Security |
P Pillar 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. |
||
|
Noma SecurityIntegrations & Tool Calling Discovery and governance cover homegrown, SaaS and endpoint agents and MCP servers, and policy is enforced through agent hooks, AI and MCP gateways, SDKs, direct APIs and the EDR or MDM a company already runs, at the moment a connection or action is attempted. Requests are masked or blocked at runtime. On employee laptops Noma finds Claude Code, Claude Cowork, Cursor, Codex, Windsurf, Kiro, Antigravity and OpenClaw, with their MCP servers, skills, connectors and linked personal and enterprise accounts. Noma also connects to Claude's Compliance API and is offered inside the AWS Security Hub Extended console. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/platform/agentic-access-control and the endpoint agent security post on noma.security/blog; noma.security/products/agent-access-controlread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityIntegrations & Tool Calling Discovery connects across the customer's environment to inventory agents and models along with MCP servers and tools. Runtime guardrails block and redact agent traffic, and telemetry streams to SIEM platforms. Discovery reaches code repositories, cloud infrastructure, AI platforms and MCP servers, and the guardrails plug into AI gateways such as LiteLLM, Kong, TrueFoundry and Agent Router. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platform and /platform/runtime-guardrailsread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
Workflow Orchestration Ability to sequence, branch, retry, route, and combine deterministic workflow nodes with autonomous agent steps. |
||
|
Noma SecurityWorkflow Orchestration The red teaming is done by Noma's own agents, which probe the customer's AI apps and agents and compound several techniques into one multi turn attack sequence, with escalating pressure at each step. The wider platform runs as a fixed pipeline of posture management, access control and runtime protection, with red team findings fed into the AI-DR runtime policies. The Agentic Risk Map brings discovery, posture and runtime together to show each agent's blast radius before deployment. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/products/ai-red-teaming and /solutions/ai-agent-securityread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityWorkflow Orchestration The product runs a fixed loop of discovery, red teaming and runtime guardrails, with governance on top and findings that tune the guardrails. Pillar does not orchestrate the customer's agents or offer a flow the customer builds. The loop covers coding agents, MCP servers and skill marketplaces. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platform and pillar.securityread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
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. |
||
|
Noma SecurityTriggers & Channel Coverage Runtime detection fires on every prompt, response, tool call, MCP interaction and agent to agent message, and access policies are checked the moment a connection or action is attempted, with no one starting the work. Newly discovered agents, MCP servers and skills enter the registry on their own, and red teaming runs continuously. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/platform/runtime-protection and /products/ai-red-teaming; noma.security/products/ai-drread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityTriggers & Channel Coverage Runtime guardrails act on every prompt and response, and on retrieved content and tool invocations, as they happen. Behavioral monitoring flags when an agent strays from its purpose, so work starts without anyone launching it. The guardrails judge intent rather than only matching patterns, blocking prompt injection, jailbreaks and tool manipulation as they happen. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platform/runtime-guardrailsread 2026-10-05 |
||
| 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. |
||
|
Noma SecurityKnowledge Grounding & RAG Discovery fills an MCP and agent registry automatically and gives each agent, MCP server and skill a status, with a profile of its toolsets, functions, data access permissions and MCP server connections, which together map the customer's AI estate. Noma says discovery finds 10 to 100 times more agents than teams expect. Noma names no knowledge store of its own for the customer's agents to draw on. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/platform/agentic-access-control, /solutions/ai-agent-security and noma.securityread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityKnowledge Grounding & RAG A full inventory covers the customer's agents and models along with MCP servers and tools, with agent permissions mapped to data sources, and RedGraph maps how tools, prompts and data combine. Together they chart the customer's AI estate, including shadow AI, and Pillar describes no retrieval structure its agents draw on. Runtime guardrails also trace PII and secrets from source to destination. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platformread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
Memory & State Persistence Ability to persist context across a run, conversation, workflow, user, team, or longer-term memory layer. |
||
|
Noma SecurityMemory & State Persistence The customer's agents get no memory from Noma. Its registry and audit trail record the AI estate and its traffic for the security team, not for an agent to read back. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/platform/runtime-protection; noma.security/products/ai-drread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityMemory & State Persistence There is no memory for the customer's agents. The asset map and the interaction logs are records about the agents, not memory the agents use. Sourcepillar.security/platformread 2026-09-28 |
||
| Control & trust | ||
|
Human Oversight & Guardrails Approval steps, consent checkpoints, escalation rules, structured guardrails, policy constraints, and pause/resume controls. |
||
|
Noma SecurityHuman Oversight & Guardrails The security team sets policies that decide what happens when an agent attempts an action, and one of the outcomes is routing the action to a person for approval before it goes through. Other outcomes block the action, alert, mask sensitive data inline, steer the agent toward a different path or trigger a killswitch, and each detector can be tuned on its own. Each agent, MCP server and skill in the registry is approved, needs review or blocked, and newly found assets land there for the security team to decide what belongs. Read access can be open to many while create, update and delete stay with a smaller group. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/products/ai-dr and noma.security/products/agent-access-controlread 2026-11-03 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityHuman Oversight & Guardrails Runtime guardrails block malicious instructions and interactions that break data handling rules, and they redact sensitive content. Approved model lists and MCP allowlists set further limits. The customer sets these limits, and Pillar describes no step that asks a person to approve before an agent action goes through. Blocking follows configurable policies for data handling and data sovereignty. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platform/runtime-guardrails and /platformread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
Security, Identity & Governance RBAC, SSO, auditability, encryption, least-privilege tool access, compliance posture, and data handling policy. |
||
|
Noma SecuritySecurity, Identity & Governance Attestations cover SOC 2 Type II audited by EY, ISO 27001, ISO/IEC 42001 and HIPAA, along with ISO 9001:2015. Controls for Noma's own operations include multi factor authentication, access reviews, audit logging, disk encryption, network segregation and endpoint detection and response. Noma names no SSO, role model or audit log for the customer's own users of the Noma console. SourceNoma Security, trust.noma.security and noma.securityread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecuritySecurity, Identity & Governance Pillar reports a SOC 2 Type II audit, and its trust center is at trust.pillar.security. Pillar names no SSO, role model or audit surface for people using the Pillar console. SourcePillar Security, pillar.securityread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
Observability & Auditability Traces, logs, execution histories, metrics, audit events, and debugging detail for production agent behavior. |
||
|
Noma SecurityObservability & Auditability Runtime protection monitors prompts, responses, agent tool calls, MCP server interactions and agent to agent communications, and every interaction, policy decision and response action is logged and searchable. Automated reporting gives auditors and regulators full traceability. The Agentic Risk Map shows each agent's connections, tools, identities and knowledge sources, so the security team can see what an agent could reach. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/platform/runtime-protection and /solutions/ai-agent-security; noma.security/products/ai-drread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityObservability & Auditability Runtime guardrails log every prompt, response and tool call with metadata and timestamps for the customer's agents, along with results, and stream telemetry to SIEM, giving a record of every tool call. Audit logs, compliance reports and policy lifecycle management sit under governance. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platform/runtime-guardrails and /platformread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
Deployment & Data Residency Deployment modes and options, including SaaS, dedicated cloud, VPC, on-prem, hybrid, local runtime, and self-hosting. |
||
|
Noma SecurityDeployment & Data Residency Where the platform itself is hosted is not published, and Noma names no region choice, data residency option or way to run it in the customer's own environment. AWS, Azure and Databricks are platforms whose agents Noma covers, not places it runs. Noma's subprocessors include Frontegg in the US for authentication, Datadog for logging and Snowflake for analytics. SourceNoma Security, noma.security and trust.noma.securityread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityDeployment & Data Residency Customers can deploy Pillar in their own VPC with their own data and models, so it can run in the customer's own environment. Pillar is offered as cloud, self hosted or hybrid. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security and /platformread 2026-10-05 |
||
| Solution readiness | ||
|
Prebuilt Agents, Templates & Packs Ready-made workflows, packaged employees, templates, blueprints, industry solutions, and role-specific agents that reduce time-to-value. |
||
|
Noma SecurityPrebuilt Agents, Templates & Packs Red teaming findings map to prebuilt compliance presets for the OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS, the NIST AI RMF, the EU AI Act and ISO 42001, and runtime protection ships prebuilt masking for PII, credentials, API keys and sensitive business data. Beyond these presets, no named catalog or prebuilt agents are offered. Solution pages package the platform for AI asset discovery, agentic identity, MCP security, AI supply chain security and coding assistant security. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/products/ai-red-teaming, /platform/runtime-protection and noma.securityread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityPrebuilt Agents, Templates & Packs Prebuilt guardrails ship, along with compliance reports for GDPR and CCPA and the published SAIL framework, now in version 2.0, but Pillar does not name them as a catalog and offers no prebuilt agents. The platform has five modules. They are discovery and posture, red teaming, runtime guardrails, governance and compliance, and an agentic endpoint module. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platformread 2026-10-05 |
||
| 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. |
||
|
Noma SecurityModel Flexibility & Routing Noma secures traffic to the customer's models and offers no model choice or routing of its own. Its detection of prompt injection and policy violations runs on proprietary AI models trained for security analysis. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/platform/runtime-protection; noma.security/products/ai-drread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityModel Flexibility & Routing Pillar enforces approved model lists but offers no model choice or routing of its own. Its guardrails mask PII, PHI, secrets and credentials before they reach the models. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platform and /platform/runtime-guardrailsread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
APIs, SDKs & MCP Extensibility Composability layer: stable APIs, SDKs, MCP tool consumption/serving, custom tools, and integration into internal systems. |
||
|
Noma SecurityAPIs, SDKs & MCP Extensibility Noma publishes no API reference, SDK or MCP server for building on its platform, and no docs site. It says policies can be enforced through SDKs and direct APIs as well as hooks and gateways, but publishes a reference for neither, and its MCP features govern the customer's own MCP servers. SourceNoma Security, noma.security and the endpoint agent security post on noma.security/blogread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityAPIs, SDKs & MCP Extensibility No public API, SDK or MCP server is published for building on Pillar. MCP allowlists are something the product enforces, not a way to build on it. AI gateways can call the runtime guardrails through an API, but Pillar publishes no reference for it. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platform and /platform/runtime-guardrailsread 2026-10-05 |
||
|
Testing, Debugging & Optimization Testing, debugging, scoring, retries, fallbacks, quality gates, and optimization loops for improving agent workflows before and after deployment. |
||
|
Noma SecurityTesting, Debugging & Optimization AI Red Teaming continuously tests the customer's AI agents and applications, whether on endpoints, in SaaS or built in house, with adaptive multi turn attack sequences covering prompt injection, jailbreaks, data leakage, denial of wallet and harmful content generation. Findings map to compliance presets with audit ready reporting and feed into the AI-DR runtime policies, so each weakness found hardens production protection. SourceNoma Security, noma.security/products/ai-red-teamingread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityTesting, Debugging & Optimization Adversarial attacks over many turns target the customer's AI agents and workflows, including black box attacks on production systems, with full attack transcripts and reproduction steps, and assessments run continuously. RedGraph maps the surfaces that can be exploited in the customer's environment. This is red teaming of the agents the customer has deployed. RedGraph builds attack graphs specific to the environment, showing lateral movement and tool chaining paths that other security tools miss. SourcePillar Security, pillar.security/platformread 2026-10-05 |
||
| Specialist automation | ||
|
Browser & Computer Use Browser, desktop, or remote/local computer control for workflows that cannot be handled through stable APIs alone. |
||
|
Noma SecurityBrowser & Computer Use Noma names no browser or computer control by its own agents. The platform governs other agents, including coding and productivity agents on employee laptops found through the EDR or MDM a company already runs. SourceNoma Security, noma.security and the endpoint agent security post on noma.security/blogread 2026-10-06 |
||
|
Pillar SecurityBrowser & Computer Use Pillar describes no browser or computer use by its own agents. It secures coding agents against prompt injection, data exfiltration, unauthorized actions, excessive permissions and malicious code execution. SourcePillar Security, pillar.securityread 2026-10-05 |
||
Pricing snapshot
Sourced from the Index pricing dataset · open each vendor's profile for full detail.
| Pricing | N Noma Security |
P Pillar Security |
|---|---|---|
|
Entry price Lowest public entry point |
Contact sales; no prices published. Demo on request. | Contact sales; no prices published. Demo on request. |
|
Pricing confidence How public the numbers are |
Contact only | Contact only |
|
Billing Primary billing axis |
Inference, not stated by the vendor: agents secured, MCP servers covered, integrations and deployment scope. | Inference, not stated by the vendor: scope of AI assets, agents and applications secured. |
|
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 |
|
Pricing verified When this pricing was last checked |
Product updates
Newest first, each linked to its source.
Noma Security
-
· Integrations
Noma connected its AI-DR runtime product to NVIDIA OpenShell through the supervisor middleware, so each request an agent makes inside an OpenShell sandbox, including prompts, tool calls and MCP traffic, passes to Noma for inspection after OpenShell's own policy check.
Source -
· Security / enterprise
Noma now finds and governs the AI agents employees run on their laptops, using the EDR or MDM a company already has to discover coding and productivity agents, MCP servers, skills and connected accounts.
Source -
· Integrations
Noma Security is available through the AWS Security Hub Extended console as its AI security partner, so enterprises can turn on AI security monitoring from within AWS.
Source
More comparisons with Noma Security or Pillar 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.