CodeIntegrity

Name: CodeIntegrity
Brand: CodeIntegrity

AI Native

AI agent security for the enterprise

LinkedIn 261|Web traffic 1K|FTEs 2|HQ San Francisco, California, US

Aspect	CodeIntegrity	Interlock	Arcade
Starting Price	Not publicly listed	Not publicly listed	Publishes usage-based pricing for hosted MCP services
Recommended for	Security teams seeking runtime control and audit of agent tool calls, with MCP use cases	Teams seeking a centralized MCP security control plane with tamper-evident receipts	Teams building or operating MCP servers and wanting a developer-centric framework with published pricing
Key Strength	Emphasis on runtime control and auditability, and on logging policy decisions and outcomes	Focus on tamper-evident receipts and integrity verification for tool calls	Public pricing and a framework approach that can facilitate piloting and adoption
Key Weakness	Limited public third-party proof points and no publicly listed pricing discovered in this research pass	Early-stage maturity and adoption clarity may vary; pricing visibility limited	May require mapping to enterprise security and compliance requirements due to framework orientation

Narrative analysis
- The category of runtime agent security is still evolving; multiple vendors and open-source projects propose similar architectural primitives: intercept tool calls, evaluate policies, log evidence, and enforce boundaries.
- Areas of relative strength for the vendor appear to be a focus on enterprise security controls and auditability rather than developer convenience metrics.
- Alternatives may be stronger in areas such as publicly documented pricing, tamper-evident evidence models, or developer frameworks depending on the vendor.
Market adoption trends (limited)
- Independent coverage and analyst commentary increasingly frame runtime controls as a relevant area for agent security, indicating the problem is recognized beyond vendor messaging.

01Competitive Landscape