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

Zenity vs. Obsidian

Zenity 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 agent security

Both platforms secure AI agents. The difference is the layer each platform prioritizes and the data each one reads.

Use Case
Zenity
Primary focus
Agent-layer visibility and control
SaaS and identity-context-informed AI security
Blast radius
Agent activity and tool calls
Downstream SaaS activity, permissions, exposure, and service account identity
Inventory context
Agent telemetry
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 Zenity

Understand actual blast radius

Agent telemetry can show that a tool call happened. But the real risk lives downstream: what data was touched, what permissions were consumed, what the service account could access, and what activity appeared inside the SaaS app.

Prioritize which agents need action first

Inventory should do more than list agents. It should show which ones combine broad SaaS reach, sensitive-data access, service-account permissions, IdP gaps, and risky activity. That way, teams know what to investigate, restrict, or remediate first.

Stop risky actions before they create downstream exposure

Runtime control shouldn’t rely only on prompts, behavior, and tool calls. It should also understand SaaS state, identity, permissions, IdP federation, data sensitivity labels, and app activity. That way teams can block or flag the 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

Copilot Studio and Zenity help govern the agent build layer: prompts, behavior, and tool calls. But once Copilot agents are live, they act inside SaaS apps like Salesforce, ServiceNow, Workday, and M365 through OAuth tokens and service accounts. 

That’s where Zenity can struggle. Without native SaaS connectors and SaaS logs, it’s hard to show what the agent actually did inside the receiving app, what permissions or app configurations enabled it, and which verified identity or service account was behind the action. Obsidian reads that SaaS and identity context natively, so you can understand the agent’s real downstream impact across apps.

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.

You can, but there's meaningful overlap at the agent-platform layer. In shared AI platforms like Copilot Studio, both products may rely on similar agent-platform telemetry. The cleaner answer is to pick the platform that also reads the SaaS and identity context the other doesn'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 Zenity and Obsidian.