In brief
By The Charter Desk, Agentic Governance Compare · Published 2026-10-01 · Vendor pages read 1 October 2026 · Editorial assessment
We measure how much of the governance chain each platform documents publicly: from a written policy, to a control that enforces it, to evidence that it worked, to a report an auditor can read. That is why runtime enforcement and testing evidence carry the most weight. A platform that documents only inventory and reporting can still be the right tool for a program that is just starting; the readiness score lets you re-weight for that.
| Criterion | Weight | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| AI discovery and inventory | 12 | Does the platform find and list the AI models, agents and applications in use, so governance has a register to work from? |
| Policy to runtime enforcement | 18 | Is a written policy turned into a control that acts on live prompts, responses or agent actions, rather than staying a document? |
| Testing evidence | 16 | Does the platform produce adversarial test results (red teaming, drift and regression checks) that feed governance records? |
| Framework mapping and audit-ready reports | 14 | Are controls and findings mapped to the EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, OWASP or MITRE ATLAS, with reports an auditor can use? |
| Regulatory intelligence and expert support | 10 | Does the vendor describe a regulatory knowledge source, managed service or expert-led work alongside the software? |
| Third-party AI governance | 10 | Can the platform register and assess AI that comes from vendors and SaaS tools, not only AI the company builds? |
| Languages and modalities | 10 | Are languages and modalities (text, image, voice, multimodal) stated, so controls cover what customer-facing AI actually receives? |
| Pricing and trial transparency | 10 | Can a buyer see prices, plan contents, a free tier or open-source tooling before talking to sales? |
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing on the pages reviewed. |
| 1 to 3 | Mentioned in passing, or a related feature only. 'Not published' pricing scores 1. |
| 4 to 6 | Described as a feature, with limited detail on how it works. |
| 7 to 8 | Described in detail, usually on a dedicated page, with named capabilities. |
| 9 to 10 | Described in detail across several pages, with named frameworks, workflows or outputs that make it usable as evidence. |
Total = sum of (criterion score x weight) / 100. We compute totals in code from the published scores and weights and show them to two decimals. Ranks sort by the exact total; equal totals share a rank. Every 'leads', 'wins', 'trails' and 'beats' statement on the site is computed from the same data.
Only the vendors' own public pages, documentation, pricing pages and press releases, plus the official pages of the frameworks we cite (EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications, MITRE ATLAS). Every score links to the page it came from. All pages were read on 1 October 2026.
The Charter Desk is the editorial name of Agentic Governance Compare. Pages are written from the sources above and dated.
When a vendor's public page changes, we re-read it, update the score and its reason, and record the change and the date here. No corrections yet: this edition was published on 2026-10-01.
No. Scores come from public vendor material only.
They are the platforms whose public pages describe AI governance for apps and agents in production: inventory-first governance platforms (Credo AI, Holistic AI) and platforms that pair runtime controls with testing and framework mapping (Alice, Pillar Security, SPLX, Lasso).