Head to head · Checked against vendor sites, September 2026
Noma Security vs Ent: AI agent security compared
The verdict
Noma Security scores higher overall on our weights (7.5 vs 6.7 out of 10). Noma Security scores higher on visibility, footprint, maturity and breadth; Ent scores higher on policy. They tie on tool-call control and identity and audit. Neither publishes list prices.
How do Noma Security and Ent compare on each criterion?
| Criterion | Weight | Noma Security | Ent | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visibility | 22% | 8 | 7 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Discovers endpoint agents such as Claude Code, Cursor and Codex with their MCP servers and skills. 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. | ||||
| Tool-call control | 20% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Blocks unauthorized and malicious agents and stops risky behavior at runtime; per-tool-call mechanics are described less specifically. 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. | ||||
| Policy | 15% | 7 | 8 | Ent |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Runtime inspection across the event, the session, the identity behind the agent and the data it reaches; decisions are alert, block, mask data or route to a human. 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. | ||||
| Identity and audit | 12% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Keeps a live registry of allowed agents, MCP servers and skills and inspects the identity behind each agent. Ent: Applies the same policy to people and agents and builds investigation timelines annotated in plain language as events happen. | ||||
| Footprint | 13% | 8 | 6 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Discovers endpoint agents through existing EDR or MDM with no new endpoint agent to deploy. 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. | ||||
| Breadth | 8% | 9 | 6 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Covers endpoint, SaaS and homegrown agents, plus AI-SPM and AI red teaming. 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. | ||||
| Maturity | 10% | 7 | 5 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 9001 and HIPAA listed; Gartner recognition cited by the vendor; pricing not published. 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. | ||||
| Total | 100% | 7.5 | 6.7 | Noma Security |
How do they deploy, and what do they cost?
| Attribute | Noma Security | Ent |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Not acquired | Not acquired |
| How it reaches devices | Through existing EDR or MDM | Single lightweight agent; SaaS or self-hosted |
| Deployment detail | Noma states that it discovers agents, MCP servers and skills on employee endpoints through your existing EDR or MDM, with no new endpoint agent to deploy. SaaS and homegrown agent coverage connects through the platforms and environments where those agents run. | 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. |
| Pricing | Contact sales. Noma Security does not publish pricing. | Contact sales. Ent does not publish pricing. |
Source: noma.security · Noma endpoint agents · Noma platform · ent.ai · Ent press: intent-aware prevention (30 Jul 2026) · Ent press: $100M seed (16 Jun 2026) · Ent company · Reviewed Sep 2026
Which should you choose?
Choose Noma Security if
- Your priority matches our designation for Noma Security: best for endpoint plus SaaS and homegrown agents.
- Your agents also run in SaaS platforms, cloud workloads or apps you build: Noma Security scores 9 to 6.
- You want a light rollout with published deployment detail, ideally through existing EDR or MDM: Noma Security scores 8 to 6.
Choose Ent if
- Your priority matches our designation for Ent: best for one intent-aware policy across people and agents.
- You want context-aware rules and answers beyond allow and block: Ent scores 8 to 7.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Noma Security or Ent?
Noma Security scores higher overall on our weights (7.5 vs 6.7 out of 10). Noma Security scores higher on visibility, footprint, maturity and breadth; Ent scores higher on policy. They tie on tool-call control and identity and audit. Scores are editorial assessments from public vendor material, reviewed September 2026.
Do Noma Security and Ent publish prices?
No. Neither publishes list prices, so ask both for a quote.
Do Noma Security or Ent replace EDR?
No. The tools in this guide add control over AI agent actions and work alongside EDR. Noma Security: Through existing EDR or MDM. Ent: Single lightweight agent; SaaS or self-hosted.
Related
Sources
- noma.security · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Noma endpoint agents · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Noma platform · Reviewed Sep 2026
- ent.ai · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Ent press: intent-aware prevention (30 Jul 2026) · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Ent press: $100M seed (16 Jun 2026) · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Ent company · Reviewed Sep 2026