This page compares only the public surfaces supported by the reviewed first-party sources.
Resources / Comparisons / AgentGuard vs Prompt Security
AgentGuard vs Prompt Security: Compare the Documented Surfaces
Use dated first-party evidence to compare public positioning, protected workflows, documented controls, unknowns, and a common proof-of-concept plan.
01This page compares only the public surfaces supported by the reviewed first-party sources.verify
02Use common evidence fields, preserve unknowns, and test the same workflow and acceptance criteria for both products.verify
03Public homepage, Docs, Quickstart, API Reference, and public repository.verify
04Official agentic AI security and governance solution page and official homegrown GenAI application solution page, accessed July 26, 2026.verify
EVALUATION / 01
Scope, Method, and Source Dates
Use common evidence fields, preserve unknowns, and test the same workflow and acceptance criteria for both products.
Public homepage, Docs, Quickstart, API Reference, and public repository.
Official agentic AI security and governance solution page and official homegrown GenAI application solution page, accessed July 26, 2026.
The current evidence does not establish feature equivalence, complete product scope, performance, pricing parity, or a universal winner.
EVALUATION / 02
At-a-Glance Comparison
CriterionPublic focus in reviewed sourcesAI agent security for developers; named high-risk actions, component scans, and OpenClaw workspace checksMCP Gateway security and governance; security for homegrown AI applicationsDocumented product surfacesRuntime Guard; Deep Scan; OpenClaw Environment Patrol; runtime and scan API groupsMCP Gateway; homegrown AI application security on the two reviewed solution pagesDocumented control descriptionsPre-execution evaluation for named action categories; scans for named components and risk categoriesReviewed pages describe visibility, real-time protection, shadow MCP detection, risk scoring, policy enforcement, audit logs, data-loss prevention, and content moderationDeployment evidenceMultiple documented integration modes; exact protection depth varies by host and modeunknown from the two reviewed solution pagesData boundaryQualified local and cloud-connected statements are publicunknown from the two reviewed solution pagesPricingunknownunknownExplicit public limitation in reviewed sourcesCannot fully monitor or block all third-party MCP server runtime callsunknown from the two reviewed solution pagesSource dateRegistered AgentGuard public source set; refresh before publicationOfficial solution pages accessed 2026-07-26
EVALUATION / 03
Documented Product Surfaces
Runtime Guard is publicly described for named action categories before execution.
Deep Scan is publicly described for skills, plugins, MCP servers, and agents across named risk categories.
OpenClaw Environment Patrol is publicly described for suspicious skills, modified plugins, new MCP servers, and drift in trusted files.
Docs, CLI, public repository, and runtime and scan API groups are available as first-party evidence.
The reviewed official page describes an MCP Gateway with visibility, real-time protection, shadow MCP detection, risk scoring, policy enforcement, and audit logs.
The reviewed homegrown-application page describes data-loss prevention, content moderation, visibility, and compliance-related capabilities.
The exact architecture, hosting, integration path, and data flow are unknown from the two reviewed pages.
These are Prompt Security first-party statements and do not prove equivalent AgentGuard capabilities or complete Prompt Security scope.
EVALUATION / 04
Compare the Protected Workflow
CriterionWhere does the control enter the workflow?Hooks, plugins, skills or commands, CLI, and APIs are described; depth variesGateway and application surfaces are described; exact integration path unknownDraw the actual request and action path for each productWhich actions or components are in scope?Named runtime actions and component types are publicMCP gateway and homegrown application controls are described at solution levelUse the same target workflow and list observed coverageCan the product affect behavior before impact?Pre-execution evaluation is described for named actionsReal-time protection and policy enforcement are described; exact decision path requires verificationTest expected allow and block casesWhat evidence is produced?Risk metadata, decisions, policy versions, audit events, and scan/API results are described at different surfacesRisk scoring and audit logs are described; exact record fields unknownCapture evidence fields and investigation usabilityWhat remains outside coverage?Third-party MCP runtime limitation is explicit; other host-depth gaps require verificationEquivalent explicit limitations are unknown from reviewed pagesRecord unsupported and indirect paths for both products
EVALUATION / 05
Deployment, Data, Pricing, and Limits
AgentGuard: Multiple public integration modes are documented; complete host-by-host depth remains unknown.
Prompt Security: unknown from the two reviewed solution pages.
AgentGuard: Public materials provide qualified local and cloud-connected statements; final privacy and retention terms still require authoritative policy review.
Prompt Security: unknown from the two reviewed solution pages.
AgentGuard: unknown.
Prompt Security: unknown.
AgentGuard: Third-party MCP server runtime calls are not fully monitorable or blockable according to the public FAQ.
Prompt Security: Equivalent explicit coverage limits are unknown from the reviewed pages.
Do not interpret unknown as absent, unsupported, free, cloud-only, self-hosted, or unlimited. Verify it directly.
EVALUATION / 06
Run the Same Proof of Concept
1. Integration map
The same target host, application, MCP path, users, and environment constraints
Architecture path, setup steps, required privileges, and unsupported connections
2. Known-safe action
One expected command, tool call, or application request
Decision, reason, latency, record fields, and operator effort
3. High-risk action
One pre-defined risky action relevant to the workflow
Allow, block, flag, or review result against the expected outcome
4. Component or gateway change
One controlled component, tool, or MCP configuration change
Detection or policy response, evidence, and update workflow
5. Data path
One test input with a known data classification
What remains local, what is sent, what is redacted, and what is retained
6. Investigation
One recorded event or finding
Traceability, policy context, source, and follow-up workflow
7. Residual path
One route outside the primary integration
Whether it is visible or controllable and who owns the remaining risk
8. Operations and cost
The same pilot duration and team roles
Maintenance, exceptions, support dependency, pricing, and total operating effort
EVALUATION / 07
Questions to Resolve Before You Choose
Which integration mode applies?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
Which actions are enforceable?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
How is MCP residual risk handled?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
What are the current plans and enterprise terms?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
What is the deployment and hosting model?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
What data crosses the gateway or application integration?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
Which runtime and MCP paths are outside coverage?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
What are the current plans and technical documentation?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
Which first-party source supports the answer?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
When was it checked?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
Can the answer be demonstrated in the target environment?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
Which residual gap remains?
Review the documented evidence and current product boundary for this requirement.
EVALUATION / 08
Verify Before You Choose
The reviewed evidence shows different documented entry points and control surfaces, but it does not establish complete scope or product equivalence. Resolve deployment, data, pricing, limitations, and the target POC outcomes before selecting either product.
Read AgentGuard Docs
/docs
Review Prompt Security's Agentic AI Security and Governance page
Review Prompt Security's Homegrown GenAI Apps page
Contact AgentGuard with the POC Scope
/contact
EVALUATION / 09
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this comparison independent?
No. AgentGuard publishes this vendor-authored comparison.
Are AgentGuard and Prompt Security equivalent in scope?
The reviewed evidence does not establish equivalent scope, architecture, or outcomes.
Which Prompt Security facts remain unknown?
Current pricing, hosting, detailed deployment, data flow, complete documentation, and explicit coverage limitations remain unknown from the two reviewed solution pages.
Does unknown mean Prompt Security lacks a capability?
No. Unknown means the reviewed evidence does not establish the fact.
What makes a fair POC?
Use the same workflow, environment, inputs, expected outcomes, data constraints, evidence requirements, operating roles, and acceptance criteria for both products.
Verify the Evaluation in Your Own Workflow
Use equal test conditions, current first-party evidence, and explicit acceptance criteria before making a decision.