Most AI security tools inspect your traffic in their service. Vaultless Guard inspects it on the machine where it was created. Here's what that changes, and where other tools are the better choice. Compiled in September 2026 from vendors' public documentation; categories, not verdicts on any one product.
They stop a paste. We keep the agent working.
They route your models. We protect what goes into them.
A contract decides what they do with your data. We decide whether they get it.
| Vaultless Guard | AI DLP platforms | AI gateways + PII plug-in | Provider terms only | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Where content is inspected | on the developer's machine | vendor service, proxy or endpoint agent | your or their gateway server | not inspected |
| A third party receives the prompt for inspection | no | in most deployments | if hosted | n/a |
| Replacement | reversible authenticated tokens | mostly block or one-way redaction | placeholders, often one-way | none |
| Real values back in agent tool calls | yes | no | partial | n/a |
| Secrets in DevOps output | yes, file classifiers | broad detector libraries | PII-first | no |
| Destructive-command guardrails | yes, ten packs | some vendors | no | no |
| Browser and web chat apps | no | yes | no | n/a |
| Model allow-lists and spend budgets | yes, enforced on the device | some vendors | yes, at the server | no |
| Routing across models and providers | no | no | yes | n/a |
| SOC 2 report | not yet | typically yes | varies | yes |
| Air-gapped | yes (Enterprise) | rarely | self-hosted open source | no |
No browser extension. No model routing. Not a sandbox. Windows in preview. We'd rather lose a deal on a gap than win it on a claim.