verifier.org

Garak alternatives

9 tools we tested head to head against Garak, ranked — and what each one actually does differently.

last reviewed 29 jul 2026 · from our best 10 ai red-teaming tools ·list curated by Onur Ozcanxin

first — what you'd be leaving

Garak ranks #2 of 10 in our ai red-teaming tools testing. apache 2.0 from nvidia, twenty-plus probe modules, and a peer-reviewed paper behind it..

85/100

the most rigorous free option and the narrowest in scope — it tests a model beautifully and knows nothing about the application around it.

why people look for an alternative
  • model-level only — no application or agent testing
  • cannot assess agentic tool abuse at all
  • no compliance-framework mapping out of the box
  • command-line only, no reporting layer

stay with Garak if apache 2.0 with no paid tier or account required is the thing you care about most — nothing below beats it on that.

the short version
best alternativePromptfooany team that wants to start testing this week without a procurement conversation.88/100
advertisement
  1. 1

    Promptfoo

    #1 in ai red-teaming tools · mit-licensed, free for ten thousand probes a month, and the only free tool here that tests agent tool access.

    88/100

    verdictthe most capable thing here you can run today, and the only free option that understands your application rather than just your model.

    Promptfoo vs Garak
     GarakPromptfoo
    pricefreefree
    free tieryesyes
    pricingfreefree tier; enterprise quote-only
    self-serveyesyes
    testsmodel onlymodel, application and agent tools
    licenceapache 2.0mit
    compliance mappingnoneclaimed, not itemised

    switch forany team that wants to start testing this week without a procurement conversation.

    pros
    • +mit licence with a real 10,000-probe monthly free tier
    • +50+ named vulnerability types including tool discovery
    • +tests the application and agent layer, not just the model
    • +self-serve install with no sales contact
    cons
    • enterprise and on-premise pricing is quote-only
    • compliance mapping claimed but not itemised
    • supporting research hosted separately and unverified
    • free tier cap will bind on any serious programme
  2. 2

    Adversa AI

    #3 in ai red-teaming tools · the most itemised attack taxonomy and the only vendor naming five compliance frameworks — behind a demo form.

    82/100

    verdictthe most concrete commercial vendor here on both what it tests and what it maps to — and you cannot find out what any of it costs.

    Adversa AI vs Garak
     GarakAdversa AI
    pricefreenot published
    free tieryesno
    pricingfreenone published
    self-serveyesno
    testsmodel onlymodel, agent and application
    licenceapache 2.0proprietary
    compliance mappingnonefive named frameworks

    switch forteams securing ai coding agents, where its current flagship is aimed.

    pros
    • +most itemised attack taxonomy across model, agent and application
    • +maps to owasp asi, nist ai rmf, eu ai act, cosai and mitre
    • +publishes named vulnerability research with real findings
    • +continuous runtime testing rather than point-in-time only
    cons
    • no pricing or self-serve path whatsoever
    • flagship narrowed to ai coding-agent runtime security
    • general red-teaming is now a companion service
    • no free tier to evaluate
  3. 3

    PyRIT

    #4 in ai red-teaming tools · microsoft's mit-licensed red-team framework — build your own attacks, and the repository just moved.

    79/100

    verdictthe most flexible free option and the one that gives you least out of the box — it's a toolkit, not a scan.

    PyRIT vs Garak
     GarakPyRIT
    pricefreefree
    free tieryesyes
    pricingfreefree
    self-serveyesyes
    testsmodel onlywhatever you build
    licenceapache 2.0mit
    compliance mappingnonenone

    switch forsecurity teams with engineering capacity who want to encode their own threat model.

    pros
    • +mit licence, maintained by microsoft
    • +fully flexible — encode your own threat model
    • +no account, no sales contact, no cost
    • +built by and for practising red teams
    cons
    • no out-of-box probe catalogue — significant setup effort
    • repository moved; the old azure location is archived
    • no published compliance-framework mapping
    • model-versus-application scoping is left to you
    advertisement
  4. 4

    Lakera

    #5 in ai red-teaming tools · the only commercial vendor here you can start using without talking to anyone.

    76/100

    verdictgenuinely lower friction than anything else commercial here — with the red-teaming service sold separately from the product you can actually sign up for.

    Lakera vs Garak
     GarakLakera
    pricefreefree tier available
    free tieryesyes
    pricingfreefree tier; paid unpublished
    self-serveyesyes, for guardrails
    testsmodel onlyapplication layer, runtime
    licenceapache 2.0proprietary
    compliance mappingnoneowasp, via third party

    switch forsmaller teams wanting runtime guardrails in place before commissioning a red-team engagement.

    pros
    • +only commercial vendor here with free self-serve signup
    • +covers direct and indirect prompt injection plus data leakage
    • +model-agnostic runtime guardrails
    • +active practitioner community and published playbooks
    cons
    • pricing page shows no figures for any paid tier
    • red-teaming service is separate from the self-serve product
    • no first-party compliance-framework mapping found
    • red-team methodology and benchmarks not detailed
  5. 5

    HiddenLayer

    #6 in ai red-teaming tools · fifty disclosed cves and thirty patents, across the broadest claimed scope here.

    73/100

    verdictthe most credible research track record among the commercial vendors, attached to product claims too broad to verify without a sales call.

    HiddenLayer vs Garak
     GarakHiddenLayer
    pricefreenot published
    free tieryesno
    pricingfreenone published
    self-serveyesno
    testsmodel onlysupply chain, application, runtime
    licenceapache 2.0proprietary
    compliance mappingnonenone found

    switch forenterprises wanting model supply-chain scanning alongside runtime protection from one vendor.

    pros
    • +50+ disclosed cves and 30+ patents
    • +model supply-chain scanning, rare in this category
    • +spans discovery, supply chain, simulation and runtime
    • +publishes an annual threat landscape report
    cons
    • no pricing published at all
    • red-teaming methodology page returns 404
    • attack coverage described broadly rather than itemised
    • no compliance-framework mapping found
  6. 6

    SPLX

    #7 in ai red-teaming tools · publishes red-team findings against named frontier models, and open-sourced the agent-mapping half of its product.

    71/100

    verdictthe most useful free artefact of any commercial vendor here, alongside published attacks on models people actually use.

    SPLX vs Garak
     GarakSPLX
    pricefreenot published
    free tieryesyes
    pricingfreenone published
    self-serveyesagentic radar only
    testsmodel onlymodel, application and agent
    licenceapache 2.0open component, closed platform
    compliance mappingnonegeneric, unnamed

    switch forteams wanting to map an agent's tool graph for free before deciding whether to buy the platform.

    pros
    • +published red-team reports on gpt-5, claude opus 4.1 and grok 4
    • +agentic radar open-sourced for agent and tool mapping
    • +covers model, application and agent layers
    • +agentic red-teaming whitepaper published
    cons
    • core platform pricing entirely undisclosed
    • no named compliance framework
    • agentic radar licence not verified
    • rebranded from splxai — older references are stale
  7. 7

    Mindgard

    #8 in ai red-teaming tools · a hundred disclosures against systems you've heard of, from a lab with a decade of university research behind it.

    68/100

    verdictthe disclosure record is the argument, and it's a decent one — everything else about the commercial offer is behind a form.

    Mindgard vs Garak
     GarakMindgard
    pricefreenot published
    free tieryesno
    pricingfreenone published
    self-serveyesno
    testsmodel onlymodel, application and agent
    licenceapache 2.0proprietary
    compliance mappingnonenone — soc 2 only

    switch forbuyers who weight demonstrated findings against real systems over published methodology.

    pros
    • +100+ public disclosures naming real frontier systems
    • +over a decade of university ai-security research heritage
    • +covers model, application and agentic workflows
    • +soc 2 type ii certified
    cons
    • pricing page contains no pricing
    • no self-serve path at all
    • soc 2 is general infosec, not ai-framework mapping
    • no detailed public methodology document found
  8. 8

    Gray Swan AI

    #9 in ai red-teaming tools · runs a public attack competition that finds real exploits — and describes its actual product in adjectives.

    65/100

    verdicta genuinely novel model for finding novel attacks, wrapped around a commercial offer you cannot evaluate from outside.

    Gray Swan AI vs Garak
     GarakGray Swan AI
    pricefreenot published
    free tieryesyes
    pricingfreenone published
    self-serveyesarena only
    testsmodel onlymodel and agent, scope vague
    licenceapache 2.0proprietary
    compliance mappingnonenone named

    switch forfrontier labs commissioning pre-release adversarial evaluation, and researchers wanting to compete.

    pros
    • +crowdsourced arena competition genuinely surfaces novel attacks
    • +publishes system cards for frontier model evaluations
    • +names deepmind, openai, anthropic and meta as partners
    • +arena is openly accessible to researchers
    cons
    • commercial products entirely sales-gated with no pricing
    • testing scope described in marketing language, not categories
    • no named compliance framework
    • most arena findings are unpublished
  9. 9

    Repello AI

    #10 in ai red-teaming tools · a free scan you can run without a sales call, behind numbers nothing supports.

    60/100

    verdictthe free entry point is real and useful; the headline capability claims have no methodology, paper or benchmark behind them that we could find.

    Repello AI vs Garak
     GarakRepello AI
    pricefreefree scan available
    free tieryesyes
    pricingfreefree scan; platform unpublished
    self-serveyesyes, for recon
    testsmodel onlyapplication and agent, black-box
    licenceapache 2.0proprietary
    compliance mappingnoneclaimed, not itemised

    switch fora no-commitment first look at how an application responds to adversarial input.

    pros
    • +free self-serve recon scan with no sales call
    • +black-box and model-agnostic across major providers
    • +covers agent autonomy and tool abuse explicitly
    • +claims multimodal and 100+ language coverage
    cons
    • 270+ vulnerability types claim has no supporting evidence
    • 15m attack patterns claim likewise unsupported
    • about and company pages return 404
    • full platform pricing unpublished

how these were compared

every tool on this page went through the same test as Garak — same tasks, same order, scored the same way. the comparison tables are the figures from that testing, not vendor spec sheets.

the ai red-teaming tools test in full →
was this useful?