Best AI Security markBest AI Security

Head to head · Checked against vendor sites, September 2026

Ent vs Lasso Security: AI agent security compared

The verdict

Ent scores higher overall on our weights (6.7 vs 6.6 out of 10). Ent scores higher on visibility, policy and identity and audit; Lasso Security scores higher on tool-call control, maturity and breadth. They tie on footprint. Neither publishes list prices.

Ent

Best for one intent-aware policy across people and agents

Read the Ent review

Lasso Security

Best for MCP gateway and Claude Code hooks

Read the Lasso Security review

How do Ent and Lasso Security compare on each criterion?

Endpoint AI control score, editorial assessment 0-10. Edge is the higher score on each row.
CriterionWeightEntLasso SecurityEdge
Visibility22%76Ent
Why these scores

Ent: A live view of OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, Claude Cowork, GitHub Copilot, Cursor and other AI tools and agents; MCP server and credential inventory is not itemized.

Lasso Security: Discovers MCP servers across Claude, Cursor and Windsurf and AI tool use; device-level inventory is not detailed.

Tool-call control20%78Lasso Security
Why these scores

Ent: Steps in at the moment of risk and blocks risky agent behavior; per-tool-call mechanics are not described on the pages we read.

Lasso Security: Inspects every tool call before it is executed through Claude Code lifecycle hooks; open-source MCP gateway with block, alert or sanitize.

Policy15%87Ent
Why these scores

Ent: One programmable, intent-aware policy for people and AI agents, with responses from a soft nudge to a hard block, and app control that can allow, block, deny or restrict usage; an on-device small language model classifies sensitive data.

Lasso Security: Intent-aware policies, role-based permissions and DLP with masking.

Identity and audit12%75Ent
Why these scores

Ent: Applies the same policy to people and agents and builds investigation timelines annotated in plain language as events happen.

Lasso Security: Detailed audit history of inputs and decisions; agent vs human attribution not described.

Footprint13%66Tie
Why these scores

Ent: A single lightweight agent across Windows, macOS, Linux and modern browsers, as SaaS or self-hosted in your own cloud; rollout through MDM is not stated.

Lasso Security: Browser extension, proxy, gateway and Claude Code enterprise hooks; several components to run.

Breadth8%68Lasso Security
Why these scores

Ent: Endpoint and browser coverage for insider risk, last-mile threats such as ClickFix, AI usage control and data security; SaaS agents and cloud workloads are not described.

Lasso Security: AI apps, agents, red teaming and usage control.

Maturity10%56Lasso Security
Why these scores

Ent: Came out of stealth on 16 June 2026 with a $100 million seed led by Decibel; founders co-founded RiskIQ; no documentation portal or pricing on ent.ai.

Lasso Security: Pricing and company backing not published on the pages we reviewed.

Total100%6.76.6Ent

How we score

How do they deploy, and what do they cost?

Published facts, reviewed September 2026.
AttributeEntLasso Security
OwnerNot acquiredNot acquired
How it reaches devicesSingle lightweight agent; SaaS or self-hostedBrowser extension, proxy, gateway, Claude Code hooks
Deployment detailA single lightweight agent across Windows, macOS, Linux and modern browsers, as SaaS or self-hosted in your own cloud. Rollout through MDM is not stated.Lasso offers a browser extension, proxy integrations, its MCP gateway and Claude Code hook integration, and says it works with existing stacks such as Palo Alto Networks or CrowdStrike.
PricingContact sales. Ent does not publish pricing.Contact sales. Pricing is not published.

Source: ent.ai · Ent press: intent-aware prevention (30 Jul 2026) · Ent press: $100M seed (16 Jun 2026) · Ent company · lasso.security · Lasso MCP security · Lasso AI coding assistants · Lasso AI usage control · Reviewed Sep 2026

Which should you choose?

Choose Ent if

  • Your priority matches our designation for Ent: best for one intent-aware policy across people and agents.
  • You need an audit record that separates agent actions from human actions: Ent scores 7 to 5.
  • You need a fleet-wide inventory of AI agents, MCP servers, extensions and credentials on devices: Ent scores 7 to 6.

Choose Lasso Security if

  • Your priority matches our designation for Lasso Security: best for MCP gateway and Claude Code hooks.
  • Your agents also run in SaaS platforms, cloud workloads or apps you build: Lasso Security scores 8 to 6.
  • You need to evaluate or stop individual tool calls before they run: Lasso Security scores 8 to 7.

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Ent or Lasso Security?

Ent scores higher overall on our weights (6.7 vs 6.6 out of 10). Ent scores higher on visibility, policy and identity and audit; Lasso Security scores higher on tool-call control, maturity and breadth. They tie on footprint. Scores are editorial assessments from public vendor material, reviewed September 2026.

Do Ent and Lasso Security publish prices?

No. Neither publishes list prices, so ask both for a quote.

Do Ent or Lasso Security replace EDR?

No. The tools in this guide add control over AI agent actions and work alongside EDR. Ent: Single lightweight agent; SaaS or self-hosted. Lasso Security: Browser extension, proxy, gateway, Claude Code hooks.

Related

Sources