See how to govern AI agents & third-party risk with Obsidian. Live on Tuesdays. Register

40% of your agents are a critical risk. Read the CISO Playbook for Securing AI Agents

Announcing our Series D to fuel agentic productivity, securely

HEAD-TO-HEAD

Noma vs. Obsidian

Noma watches the agent. The breach plays out in Salesforce, Workday, and your third-party apps.

Get a Demo
Buyout Options Available

Trusted By

300×
increase in AI agent activity, 2025
40%
of agents carry medium-to-critical risk
800+
risky agents in avg enterprise environment
TWO DIFFERENT BETS

Different approaches to AI security

Both platforms help teams manage AI risk. The difference is the layer each platform prioritizes and the data each one reads.

Use Case
Noma
Primary focus
AI system security and governance
SaaS- and identity-context-informed AI security
Blast radius
AI assets, agents, models, and connected tools
Downstream SaaS activity, permissions, exposure, and service account identity.
Inventory context
AI-layer asset and risk context
Ownership of agent risk context across SaaS reach, identity, permissions, activity, and data sensitivity
Runtime decisions
Coarse-grained policies based on prompt behavior and tool-call activity
Fine-grained policies based on SaaS permissions, app configuration, verified identity, and real downstream risk
WHY THIS MATTERS NOW

Why Obsidian Over Noma

Understand actual blast radius

AI security findings can show that an AI system, model, or agent is risky. But the real business impact depends on what that system can reach: which SaaS apps, what permissions, which identities, and what sensitive data may be exposed.

Prioritize which AI risks need action first

AI inventories should do more than list models, agents, and apps. They should show which risks connect to sensitive SaaS data, privileged identities, service-account access, IdP gaps, and real activity. That way, teams know what to investigate, restrict, or remediate first.

Stop risky actions before they create downstream exposure

Runtime and guardrail decisions shouldn’t rely only on AI-layer signals. They should also account for SaaS state, identity context, permissions, IdP federation, data sensitivity labels, and app activity. That way, teams can block or flag actions that create real business risk.
See how Obsidian compares in your environment.
Bring a SaaS-governance, OAuth , access-review, or incident-response workflow. We'll show where inventory ends and activity - backed context begins.
See the Platform
FAQ

Common questions

Both enforce at runtime. The difference is what each policy reads when it fires. Agent-side runtime can control what an agent does at the tool-call level. Obsidian extends runtime decisioning with SaaS state, identity, and permissions, so policies can be more specific over time: for example, don't touch a file in OneDrive labeled sensitive, when the agent was built by a specific user, calling on behalf of a specific identity. That granularity comes from reading the receiving app's state and identity context, not just the agent's tool calls.

Inventory is only the starting point. Obsidian shows who built the agent, who ran it, and what the service account inside the SaaS app is permissioned to do. That gives defenders the context to understand which agents create real business risk and align configuration to that risk.

Noma ships strong out-of-the-box framework mappings for NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, EU AI Act, and OWASP. The harder question is whether a checklist-passing AI inventory catches the breach. An agent can clear every governance control on paper and still hold a toxic combination of entitlements only visible from inside the connected SaaS apps. Obsidian builds the evidence layer the governance reporting actually needs.

You'd be paying twice for the AI-layer data. Both platforms connect to the same AI platforms with effectively the same connectors and ingest the same underlying telemetry. The cleaner answer is to pick the platform that reads the SaaS and identity context the other can't.

Posture detection tells you an agent looks risky. By the time a posture finding lands, the agent has often already executed. Runtime enforcement fires at the tool call, before the action completes. Both platforms have moved to runtime for this reason. The remaining question is what each runtime can read: agent inputs and outputs alone, or also the SaaS state and identity context that decide whether the action is actually risky.

99.99% uptime over the last 12 months. Regional hosting across the US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and Australia. Granular RBAC scoped per app. Production-safe connectors with bulk-API support. Obsidian connects to your most critical SaaS apps and collects activity data without disrupting them. Learn more about our certifications and attestations.

These come from real customer environments, including customers who've evaluated Noma and Obsidian.