home / rankings / ai red-teaming tools / lakera alternatives Lakera alternatives 9 tools we tested head to head against Lakera, 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 Ozcan x in
first — what you'd be leaving Lakera ranks #5 of 10 in our ai red-teaming tools testing. the only commercial vendor here you can start using without talking to anyone..
76 /100 genuinely lower friction than anything else commercial here — with the red-teaming service sold separately from the product you can actually sign up for.
why people look for an alternative
− 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 stay with Lakera if only commercial vendor here with free self-serve signup is the thing you care about most — nothing below beats it on that.
advertisement
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 verdict the most capable thing here you can run today, and the only free option that understands your application rather than just your model.
Promptfoo vs Lakera
Lakera Promptfoo price free tier available free free tier yes yes pricing free tier; paid unpublished free tier; enterprise quote-only self-serve yes, for guardrails yes tests application layer, runtime model, application and agent tools licence proprietary mit compliance mapping owasp, via third party claimed, not itemised
switch for any 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
Garak #2 in ai red-teaming tools · apache 2.0 from nvidia, twenty-plus probe modules, and a peer-reviewed paper behind it.
85 /100 verdict the most rigorous free option and the narrowest in scope — it tests a model beautifully and knows nothing about the application around it.
Garak vs Lakera
Lakera Garak price free tier available free free tier yes yes pricing free tier; paid unpublished free self-serve yes, for guardrails yes tests application layer, runtime model only licence proprietary apache 2.0 compliance mapping owasp, via third party none
switch for scanning a specific model for known failure modes, with something citable to show for it.
pros
+ apache 2.0 with no paid tier or account required + 20+ probe modules covering a wide failure taxonomy + peer-reviewed arxiv preprint behind the methodology + actively maintained under nvidia's organisation cons
− 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 3
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 verdict the 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 Lakera
Lakera Adversa AI price free tier available not published free tier yes no pricing free tier; paid unpublished none published self-serve yes, for guardrails no tests application layer, runtime model, agent and application licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping owasp, via third party five named frameworks
switch for teams 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 advertisement
4
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 verdict the most flexible free option and the one that gives you least out of the box — it's a toolkit, not a scan.
PyRIT vs Lakera
Lakera PyRIT price free tier available free free tier yes yes pricing free tier; paid unpublished free self-serve yes, for guardrails yes tests application layer, runtime whatever you build licence proprietary mit compliance mapping owasp, via third party none
switch for security 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 5
HiddenLayer #6 in ai red-teaming tools · fifty disclosed cves and thirty patents, across the broadest claimed scope here.
73 /100 verdict the most credible research track record among the commercial vendors, attached to product claims too broad to verify without a sales call.
HiddenLayer vs Lakera
Lakera HiddenLayer price free tier available not published free tier yes no pricing free tier; paid unpublished none published self-serve yes, for guardrails no tests application layer, runtime supply chain, application, runtime licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping owasp, via third party none found
switch for enterprises 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
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 verdict the most useful free artefact of any commercial vendor here, alongside published attacks on models people actually use.
SPLX vs Lakera
Lakera SPLX price free tier available not published free tier yes yes pricing free tier; paid unpublished none published self-serve yes, for guardrails agentic radar only tests application layer, runtime model, application and agent licence proprietary open component, closed platform compliance mapping owasp, via third party generic, unnamed
switch for teams 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
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 verdict the disclosure record is the argument, and it's a decent one — everything else about the commercial offer is behind a form.
Mindgard vs Lakera
Lakera Mindgard price free tier available not published free tier yes no pricing free tier; paid unpublished none published self-serve yes, for guardrails no tests application layer, runtime model, application and agent licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping owasp, via third party none — soc 2 only
switch for buyers 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
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 verdict a genuinely novel model for finding novel attacks, wrapped around a commercial offer you cannot evaluate from outside.
Gray Swan AI vs Lakera
Lakera Gray Swan AI price free tier available not published free tier yes yes pricing free tier; paid unpublished none published self-serve yes, for guardrails arena only tests application layer, runtime model and agent, scope vague licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping owasp, via third party none named
switch for frontier 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
Repello AI #10 in ai red-teaming tools · a free scan you can run without a sales call, behind numbers nothing supports.
60 /100 verdict the 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 Lakera
Lakera Repello AI price free tier available free scan available free tier yes yes pricing free tier; paid unpublished free scan; platform unpublished self-serve yes, for guardrails yes, for recon tests application layer, runtime application and agent, black-box licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping owasp, via third party claimed, not itemised
switch for a 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 Lakera — 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?
yes · 0 no · 0
Promptfoo alternatives Garak alternatives Adversa AI alternatives PyRIT alternatives HiddenLayer alternatives SPLX alternatives