Zenity vs Noma Security (2026): AI Security Compared — and Where Kosmoy Fits

Three shapes on the same ten axes. Zenity (orange) and Noma Security (violet) overlap heavily — both peak on AI Inventory, Security and Guardrails, both sit low on Gateway, FinOps and Agent Building. Two axes separate them: Noma reaches much further on Deployment Sovereignty (documented self-hosted/on-prem) and on Testing & Red-teaming (an adaptive CI/CD engine), while Zenity's inline Microsoft-ecosystem enforcement is deeper. Kosmoy (blue) covers a wider web — gateway, compliance evidence and, decisively, Agent Containment. Read it as area: the two specialists own detection and response; the suite adds contained execution.

Business-platform depth. The broadest documented coverage of copilots and low-code agents — Copilot Studio, Power Platform, M365 Copilot, Fabric, ChatGPT Enterprise, Salesforce — with inline step-level prevention inside Copilot Studio at GA (Nov 2025), deeper than API-log monitoring.

End-to-end on the agents enterprises deploy first. Observe, AISPM and AIDR in one platform aimed squarely at the Microsoft copilots that dominate real-world rollouts, so discovery, posture and response come from one console.

Category standing. Gartner has named Zenity the 'Company to Beat' in agent security, and its threat-research arm actively shapes the field.

Self-hosted deployment. Noma documents SaaS and on-prem/self-hosted deployments — models, data and security events can stay inside the customer environment, with a Kong AI Gateway plugin for self-hosted enforcement. Zenity is SaaS-only, with no on-prem option documented as of July 15, 2026.

Adaptive red teaming. An agent-based, CI/CD-embedded red-team engine (Nemotron-powered as of May 2026) runs hundreds of adversarial tests per deployment against multi-step agent workflows — a productized capability Zenity's buildtime posture assessment does not match.

Identity-based agent governance. Agent Access Control gives each agent and MCP server a distinct identity with tool-level approve/review/block, backing the deepest funding in the category ($132M).

Zenity and Noma are among the best agent-security platforms on the market. Both discover agents, assess posture and act at runtime — Zenity can quarantine an agent, revoke its permissions or block a step; Noma can stop a blocked agent or MCP server from connecting. But blocking a connection or revoking a credential is response after detection, not isolation: neither documents a sandboxed execution environment in which the agent actually runs. If a trusted agent is hijacked mid-task, the question is what it can still reach.

Kosmoy answers that with architecture. Every agent runs inside an Action Capsule — a kernel-enforced sandbox whose only egress is its paired gateway, with per-task credentials and a live kill switch — so containment does not depend on detecting the attack first. Around it sit the layers these specialists leave out: an org-wide inventory with a master agent registry (Foundry, Bedrock, Vertex, Salesforce, ServiceNow) and EU AI Act, ISO 42001 (aligned) and NIST AI RMF evidence generated from registry state and gateway logs.

The honest framing: Zenity and Noma out-detect and out-red-team Kosmoy, and Noma matches it on self-hosting. Detection and response are one spoke. If the requirement is to contain every agent by default and prove control over all your AI in your own infrastructure, that is a suite decision — the kind Kosmoy runs air-gapped for Banca d'Italia (Italy's central bank and banking regulator) and Leonardo (Europe's largest defence and aerospace group).

For a team whose problem is agent security on the platforms they actually run, pick on architecture: Zenity for the deepest inline coverage of Microsoft copilots and low-code agents, Noma for homegrown/RAG/MCP estates and self-hosted deployment with adaptive red teaming. Both are strong, and both can run alongside Kosmoy.

For an enterprise that has to contain agents by default — not just detect and quarantine them — and prove control over all of its AI on its own infrastructure, the decision is between a detection-and-response specialist and a control plane. Many teams run both: a specialist for posture and red teaming, Kosmoy for contained execution, inventory and compliance evidence.