Category comparisonvs Agentic security platforms
Noma and Zenity secure the agents your organization builds: discovery, permissions, red teaming, posture. Harmonic governs how your people use AI, agentic or not. That's the larger half of the problem for most enterprises, and it's the half standing between you and getting AI actually deployed.
What counts as an agent
Is a scheduled task an agent? An installed skill? A saved workflow with three steps in it? Anything acting on someone's behalf? Nobody agrees, and the line keeps moving.
Agents with an identity of their own
Agentic work done by your workforce
Both are real, and they aren't the same size. The first is a list somebody can recite. The second is every employee you have, using tools that change weekly, most of it not agentic at all and all of it needing governance before you can say yes to more of it. That's the half Harmonic is built for.
What Noma and Zenity own
If the agents worrying you are ones your organization builds and runs, these platforms serve you better than we will. Said plainly, so you don't discover it in a POV.
Which agents exist, who owns them, what each can reach. Noma's AI-SPM and Agentic Risk Map trace an agent's blast radius across its tools and connections. Zenity does event-driven discovery and posture across SaaS, cloud and endpoint agents. Harmonic has no equivalent and isn't building one.
Testing an agent before it ships, probing for prompt injection and tool poisoning, wiring findings into CI/CD, mapping to OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS or the EU AI Act. An AppSec discipline with an AppSec buyer, belonging in the build pipeline.
Copilot Studio, Azure AI Foundry, Agentforce and Bedrock expose supervisory APIs, and both vendors integrate to constrain agents built there. A real capability on a surface Harmonic doesn't touch.
Harmonic vs Noma and Zenity
Both vendors have moved onto the endpoint, so this isn't a claim that they can't see any of it. It's a claim about depth on a surface they came to second.
Their endpoint coverage is agent-shaped. Ours is AI-shaped.
Zenity monitors device-based agents including Cursor and Claude Desktop, and Noma hooks Cursor's agent runtime. Real capability, scoped to coding agents and agent frameworks. Harmonic covers 1,000+ AI applications across browser and desktop, including AI features buried inside SaaS tools and the long tail of apps nobody registered. Most of what your workforce does with AI happens outside an agent framework entirely.
An agent inventory tells you what exists. It doesn't tell you what the work is or whether it's paying off.
Harmonic classifies AI activity into business use cases built from your own data, mapped to teams and tools. That's what lets a security team say yes to more AI with a defensible position behind it, and it's the artifact an AI committee or a board asks for. Neither Noma nor Zenity produces it, because neither was built to answer questions about work.
Whether someone used a personal ChatGPT login or a corporate one, and on which plan, is a workforce question nobody else answers.
Free and enterprise tiers share a domain, an interface and a traffic pattern, but not the terms covering the data. Harmonic resolves the account and the plan at the point of use across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot and Perplexity. That distinction has no equivalent in agent security, because deployed agents don't have personal accounts.
Intent inferred from the execution path is not the same as understanding the task.
Nearly every vendor here claims intent, and it's worth asking what the claim rests on. Usually it's the shape of the activity: which tools were called, with which parameters, in what order. Real signal, and it catches an agent behaving oddly. It's also what most MCP gateways offer, MintMCP, Operant, RunLayer and Lasso's open-source gateway among them: authentication, allow lists and an audit record. Harmonic's small language models classify the content of a prompt or tool call in roughly 200ms, which is a different question from who called what.
An agent doesn't need persuading. A person does.
Workforce governance needs an interface for humans: a warning at the moment it matters, a nudge toward the sanctioned tool, an explanation of why this one isn't approved. Agent platforms enforce on agents, which don't argue, don't need coaching and don't find a workaround on their phone. Building for the employee is a different product, and it's the one we build.
Frequently asked
Including the ones where the answer is no.
Not really. Different half of the problem, usually a different buyer, frequently deployed together.
They own the agents your organization builds. We own how your workforce uses AI, agentic or not. If you're evaluating us against each other, it's worth checking which of those two questions your board is actually asking, because the answer decides which product you need.
AI-SPM assesses configuration and risk across AI assets you own: models, pipelines, agents, their permissions and connections. It answers whether your AI estate is built safely.
AI usage governance answers what people and agents are actually doing with AI day to day, including tools nobody registered, and whether sensitive data is moving through those interactions.
Partly, and the honest answer has changed recently.
Both now monitor agents on employee devices, mostly coding agents and agent frameworks. Neither is built for the wider surface: hundreds of third-party AI apps, AI features inside SaaS tools, personal accounts alongside enterprise ones, and semantic detection of sensitive content in what gets typed or attached.
The first problem is that "agent" has stretched to cover almost anything. Is a scheduled task that runs overnight an agent? A skill installed in a desktop client? A saved workflow with a few steps in it? Anything acting on someone's behalf? Nobody agrees, and the line keeps moving.
Some agents clearly do have an identity of their own, and there are teams and vendors specialized in that: integrating with Copilot Studio, Azure AI Foundry, Bedrock and Agentforce to inventory those agents, map their permissions and watch what they do. If that's the problem in front of you, that's where to look, and it isn't us.
Harmonic sits at the data layer, underneath the distinction. Whether a request came from a deployed agent, a coding assistant, a workflow somebody wired up last week or a person typing into a chat window, the question is the same: what's in it, and should it be going there. Most AI activity in an enterprise still isn't agentic at all, and Usage Intelligence classifies all of it into business use cases, which is not something an agent inventory produces.
It removes a lot of risk. Zenity makes a version of this point themselves: a correctly permissioned agent can still cause a breach.
Least privilege constrains which tools an agent can reach. It says nothing about what travels through the calls it's allowed to make, and an agent scoped tightly to one CRM can still pull a customer list into a summarization request.
Book a demo
Every AI tool your workforce touches, the use cases behind that activity, and the agentic work already running on their laptops. No changes to the agent platform you already run.
What happens next
Looking to become a partner? Apply here
