home / rankings / ai red-teaming tools / mindgard alternatives Mindgard alternatives 9 tools we tested head to head against Mindgard, 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 Mindgard ranks #8 of 10 in our ai red-teaming tools testing. a hundred disclosures against systems you've heard of, from a lab with a decade of university research behind it..
68 /100 the disclosure record is the argument, and it's a decent one — everything else about the commercial offer is behind a form.
why people look for an alternative
− 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 stay with Mindgard if 100+ public disclosures naming real frontier systems 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 Mindgard
Mindgard Promptfoo price not published free free tier no yes pricing none published free tier; enterprise quote-only self-serve no yes tests model, application and agent model, application and agent tools licence proprietary mit compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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 Mindgard
Mindgard Garak price not published free free tier no yes pricing none published free self-serve no yes tests model, application and agent model only licence proprietary apache 2.0 compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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 Mindgard
Mindgard Adversa AI price not published not published free tier no no pricing none published none published self-serve no no tests model, application and agent model, agent and application licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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 Mindgard
Mindgard PyRIT price not published free free tier no yes pricing none published free self-serve no yes tests model, application and agent whatever you build licence proprietary mit compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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
Lakera #5 in ai red-teaming tools · the only commercial vendor here you can start using without talking to anyone.
76 /100 verdict genuinely 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 Mindgard
Mindgard Lakera price not published free tier available free tier no yes pricing none published free tier; paid unpublished self-serve no yes, for guardrails tests model, application and agent application layer, runtime licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping none — soc 2 only owasp, via third party
switch for smaller 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 6
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 Mindgard
Mindgard HiddenLayer price not published not published free tier no no pricing none published none published self-serve no no tests model, application and agent supply chain, application, runtime licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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 7
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 Mindgard
Mindgard SPLX price not published not published free tier no yes pricing none published none published self-serve no agentic radar only tests model, application and agent model, application and agent licence proprietary open component, closed platform compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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 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 Mindgard
Mindgard Gray Swan AI price not published not published free tier no yes pricing none published none published self-serve no arena only tests model, application and agent model and agent, scope vague licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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 Mindgard
Mindgard Repello AI price not published free scan available free tier no yes pricing none published free scan; platform unpublished self-serve no yes, for recon tests model, application and agent application and agent, black-box licence proprietary proprietary compliance mapping none — soc 2 only 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 Mindgard — 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 Lakera alternatives HiddenLayer alternatives