Best AI Security markBest AI Security

Head to head · Checked against vendor sites, September 2026

Bay vs Noma Security: which controls AI agents on the endpoint better?

The verdict

For control over what AI agents do on employee devices, Bay has the edge (7.9 vs 7.5): its public material describes Allow, Ask or Deny decisions on each tool call with session context in more detail. Noma Security wins on coverage beyond the endpoint and on maturity, so it is the better fit when agents also run in SaaS and in apps you build.

Bay

Editors' pick for endpoint agent control

Read the Bay review

Noma Security

Best for endpoint plus SaaS and homegrown agents

Read the Noma Security review

How do Bay and Noma Security compare on each criterion?

Endpoint AI control score, editorial assessment 0-10. Edge is the higher score on each row.
CriterionWeightBayNoma SecurityEdge
Visibility22%98Bay
Why these scores

Bay: Inventories AI agents, MCP servers, tools, credentials, extensions, settings and endpoint deployments, with 200+ detection rules (bay.io blog).

Noma Security: Discovers endpoint agents such as Claude Code, Cursor and Codex with their MCP servers and skills.

Tool-call control20%97Bay
Why these scores

Bay: Evaluates prompts, pre-tool calls and post-tool responses and returns Allow, Ask or Deny locally, stated as under 4ms, on supported agent surfaces.

Noma Security: Blocks unauthorized and malicious agents and stops risky behavior at runtime; per-tool-call mechanics are described less specifically.

Policy15%97Bay
Why these scores

Bay: Session-aware decisions using identity, prior actions and data accessed; capability rules for shell, code execution, package installs, cloud CLIs, containers, Kubernetes, browser automation; Simulation Mode.

Noma Security: Runtime inspection across the event, the session, the identity behind the agent and the data it reaches; action types beyond block not detailed.

Identity and audit12%87Bay
Why these scores

Bay: Activity records who triggered an action, whether a human was involved, and the chain from prompt to system action.

Noma Security: Keeps a live registry of allowed agents, MCP servers and skills and inspects the identity behind each agent.

Footprint13%98Bay
Why these scores

Bay: Deploys through existing EDR or MDM as an ephemeral binary (Wave); Bay describes itself as agentless.

Noma Security: Discovers endpoint agents through existing EDR or MDM with no new endpoint agent to deploy.

Breadth8%49Noma Security
Why these scores

Bay: Endpoint only by design; no public material on SaaS agents, cloud AI apps or red teaming.

Noma Security: Covers endpoint, SaaS and homegrown agents, plus AI-SPM and AI red teaming.

Maturity10%37Noma Security
Why these scores

Bay: Smallest public footprint in this guide: two blog posts, no public documentation portal and no published pricing; SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are claimed on bay.io.

Noma Security: SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 9001 and HIPAA listed; Gartner recognition cited by the vendor; pricing not published.

Total100%7.97.5Bay

How we score

What do Bay and Noma Security have in common?

More than most pairs in this guide. Both find AI agents such as Claude Code, Cursor and Codex on employee devices along with the MCP servers they use. Both say they reach devices through the EDR or MDM you already run, with no new endpoint agent. Both block unapproved agents and apply policy at runtime.

Where does Bay pull ahead?

On the detail of per-action control. Bay states that it evaluates prompts, pre-tool calls and post-tool responses on supported agent surfaces and returns Allow, Ask or Deny locally in under 4ms (vendor-stated), using the user's identity, prior actions and data accessed. It lists capability rules for shell and code execution, package installation, cloud CLIs, containers, Kubernetes and browser automation, offers Simulation Mode, and records whether a human was involved in each action. Noma describes runtime inspection across the event, session, identity and data, but in less mechanical detail.

Where does Noma Security pull ahead?

On breadth and maturity. Noma covers endpoint, SaaS and homegrown agents, adds AI-SPM and AI red teaming, and lists SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 9001 and HIPAA. Bay describes endpoint coverage only and publishes little beyond its home page and two blog posts, with no documentation portal and no pricing. Neither publishes prices.

Which should you choose?

Choose Bay if

  • Your main exposure is coding agents and MCP servers on developer machines.
  • You want an Ask option and simulation before enforcing.
  • You want a per-action record of human versus agent activity.

Choose Noma Security if

  • Your agents run in SaaS platforms and your own apps as well as on laptops.
  • You want posture, runtime and red teaming from one vendor.
  • Vendor maturity weighs heavily in procurement.

Frequently asked questions

Do Bay and Noma Security both deploy through EDR?

Both state that they reach endpoints through your existing EDR or MDM without a new endpoint agent.

Which is better for Claude Code and Codex?

Both name Claude Code and Codex. Bay also describes managed settings for Claude Code, Codex and Claude Desktop, such as locking permission rules and restricting MCP servers.

Related

Sources