Head to head · Checked against vendor sites, September 2026
Noma Security vs Glow Security: 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 footprint, identity and audit, maturity and breadth; Glow Security leads on no criterion. They tie on visibility, tool-call control and policy. Neither publishes list prices.
How do Noma Security and Glow Security compare on each criterion?
| Criterion | Weight | Noma Security | Glow Security | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visibility | 22% | 8 | 8 | Tie |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Discovers endpoint agents such as Claude Code, Cursor and Codex with their MCP servers and skills. Glow Security: Positions itself as control over everything that runs on the endpoint, with Asset Intelligence and shadow AI discovery; its Anthropic integration collects per-user Claude usage, custom skills and installed connectors. | ||||
| 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. Glow Security: Glow describes a pre-execution hook that can block an action or hold it for approval, and runtime prevention policies for coding agents; per-call mechanics are not documented on pages we could read. | ||||
| Policy | 15% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
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. Glow Security: Adaptable policies with autonomous remediation and prevention agents, and a Claude Code managed-settings bundle through its Anthropic integration. | ||||
| Identity and audit | 12% | 7 | 6 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Keeps a live registry of allowed agents, MCP servers and skills and inspects the identity behind each agent. Glow Security: Per-user Claude usage and a compliance audit trail through the Anthropic integration, which needs Claude Enterprise and the Compliance API; attribution for other agents is not described. | ||||
| Footprint | 13% | 8 | 5 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Discovers endpoint agents through existing EDR or MDM with no new endpoint agent to deploy. Glow Security: How Glow reaches devices is not stated on its homepage, and its documentation site could not be read. | ||||
| Breadth | 8% | 9 | 6 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: Covers endpoint, SaaS and homegrown agents, plus AI-SPM and AI red teaming. Glow Security: Covers software control and asset intelligence beyond AI tools, plus enterprise AI accounts and settings through the Anthropic integration; cloud workloads are not described. | ||||
| Maturity | 10% | 7 | 6 | Noma Security |
Why these scoresNoma Security: SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 9001 and HIPAA listed; Gartner recognition cited by the vendor; pricing not published. Glow Security: Came out of stealth on 22 July 2026 with $180M at a $1.2B valuation, led by Sequoia, Cyberstarts, Greenoaks and Redpoint; named customer quotes and a trust center on glow.io; no pricing. | ||||
| Total | 100% | 7.5 | 6.7 | Noma Security |
How do they deploy, and what do they cost?
| Attribute | Noma Security | Glow Security |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Not acquired | Not acquired |
| How it reaches devices | Through existing EDR or MDM | Not published |
| 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. | How Glow reaches devices is not stated on its homepage, and its documentation site could not be read. |
| Pricing | Contact sales. Noma Security does not publish pricing. | Contact sales. Glow Security does not publish pricing. |
Source: noma.security · Noma endpoint agents · Noma platform · glow.io · Glow Anthropic integration · Glow research: developer screenshots exposed by AI agents (29 Sep 2026) · Glow emerges from stealth (22 Jul 2026) · 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.
- You want a light rollout with published deployment detail, ideally through existing EDR or MDM: Noma Security scores 8 to 5.
- Your agents also run in SaaS platforms, cloud workloads or apps you build: Noma Security scores 9 to 6.
Choose Glow Security if
- Your priority matches our designation for Glow Security: best for software control across the endpoint.
- Against Noma Security, Glow Security leads on no criterion; it ties on visibility, tool-call control and policy. It can still fit if it matches your existing stack.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Noma Security or Glow Security?
Noma Security scores higher overall on our weights (7.5 vs 6.7 out of 10). Noma Security scores higher on footprint, identity and audit, maturity and breadth; Glow Security leads on no criterion. They tie on visibility, tool-call control and policy. Scores are editorial assessments from public vendor material, reviewed September 2026.
Do Noma Security and Glow Security publish prices?
No. Neither publishes list prices, so ask both for a quote.
Do Noma Security or Glow Security 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. Glow Security: Not published.
Related
Sources
- noma.security · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Noma endpoint agents · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Noma platform · Reviewed Sep 2026
- glow.io · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Glow Anthropic integration · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Glow research: developer screenshots exposed by AI agents (29 Sep 2026) · Reviewed Sep 2026
- Glow emerges from stealth (22 Jul 2026) · Reviewed Sep 2026