Helmet Security

Name: Helmet Security
Brand: Helmet Security

Helmet Security is an enterprise security platform that discovers agentic-AI activity, verifies agent components, enforces runtime policies, and supports governance evidence workflows.

LinkedIn 457|Website|FTEs 9

01Competitive Landscape

Areas where alternatives have clearer advantages

- **Noma: documented automated red teaming.** Noma explicitly describes multi-turn adversarial testing and feeding findings into runtime policies. An equivalent Helmet product was not established in the reviewed pages. This is a documentation and offering distinction, not a measured effectiveness ranking. (Vendor product page) - **MintMCP: clearer procurement information.** Its pricing page identifies active-user licensing, platform fees, self-hosting, enterprise SLAs, EU/US residency, and SOC 2 Type II assertions. These disclosures give buyers more concrete questions to verify than Helmet’s current public materials. (Vendor pricing page) - **Prisma AIRS: breadth and commercial footprint.** The vendor’s investor materials report a sizable ARR and hundreds of customers. However, customers are counted from booked quotes containing AIRS credits, and allocated credits may be consumed across products. These are not equivalent to independently verified active production deployments. (Vendor investor presentation) - **Runlayer: named customer references.** Public references include several recognizable customers. Named references improve reference-check opportunities, but remain vendor-selected evidence. (Vendor customer page) - **Zenity: explicitly named SaaS ecosystems.** Its published coverage includes major SaaS ecosystems and agent platforms. For buyers concentrated in those ecosystems, that specificity is useful; comparable Helmet coverage must be demonstrated rather than assumed. (Vendor product coverage page) - **Archestra: inspectability.** Public code, documentation, and deployment instructions support technical inspection. This does not remove self-hosting costs or guarantee equal security coverage; enterprise licensing boundaries also need review. (Public code repository)

Potential points of fit for Helmet

Helmet’s combination of existing-telemetry discovery, optional endpoint instrumentation, component verification, hooks, gateways, and evidence may suit organizations that want governance without standardizing exclusively on one gateway or one cloud. However, Noma also describes enforcement through existing gateways, EDR, MDM, and agent hooks. Lifecycle breadth and integration flexibility are therefore not established as exclusive Helmet advantages. (Vendor product site)

Customer comparisons and market share

- No verified customer account was found explaining a choice between Helmet and these competitors. - No documented Helmet-to-competitor migration was found. - No defensible market-share percentage was established. - Helmet’s December 2025 customer report and Palo Alto’s 2026 quote-based customer measure have different dates and definitions; a numerical market-share comparison would be misleading. (Local tech press coverage) G2’s alternatives page lists contact-center and privacy products alongside security tools. Those taxonomy-driven suggestions should not substitute for a workflow-specific agent-security shortlist. (G2 product and seller pages)

	Helmet Security	Noma Security	MintMCP	Prisma AIRS
Starting price	Not published; contact-led	Published high-value contract dimension; scope must be confirmed	Custom quote; active-user licensing plus platform fees	Quote/credit-based; no verified universal starting dollar price
Intended use	Teams seeking connected agent discovery, registry, enforcement, and evidence	Broad AI security programs including automated adversarial testing	Teams centralizing governed MCP and LLM access	Organizations seeking broad AI protection within the Palo Alto ecosystem
Documented distinction	Existing-stack discovery and several enforcement deployment options	Explicit red-teaming and access-control product coverage	Published authentication, residency, and commercial-model detail	Broader published portfolio and larger disclosed commercial adoption
Evidence gap	Limited customer validation and public technical/commercial detail	Marketplace figure is not directly comparable without defined scope	Quote opacity; centralized gateway must cover relevant workflows	Credit allocation and consumption complicate cost comparison
Deployment detail	Hosted, self-hosted/local proxy, Bedrock/APIM orchestration	Multiple AI surfaces; validate environment-specific implementation	Self-hosted option; EU/US residency advertised	BYOL using Software NGFW credits
Public proof	Unnamed early traction; briefing coverage	Named vendor-hosted testimonials	Vendor security and operational documentation	Public-company adoption disclosures, with important definitions

01Competitive Landscape

Areas where alternatives have clearer advantages

Noma: documented automated red teaming. Noma explicitly describes multi-turn adversarial testing and feeding findings into runtime policies. An equivalent Helmet product was not established in the reviewed pages. This is a documentation and offering distinction, not a measured effectiveness ranking. (Vendor product page)
MintMCP: clearer procurement information. Its pricing page identifies active-user licensing, platform fees, self-hosting, enterprise SLAs, EU/US residency, and SOC 2 Type II assertions. These disclosures give buyers more concrete questions to verify than Helmet’s current public materials. (Vendor pricing page)
Prisma AIRS: breadth and commercial footprint. The vendor’s investor materials report a sizable ARR and hundreds of customers. However, customers are counted from booked quotes containing AIRS credits, and allocated credits may be consumed across products. These are not equivalent to independently verified active production deployments. (Vendor investor presentation)
Runlayer: named customer references. Public references include several recognizable customers. Named references improve reference-check opportunities, but remain vendor-selected evidence. (Vendor customer page)
Zenity: explicitly named SaaS ecosystems. Its published coverage includes major SaaS ecosystems and agent platforms. For buyers concentrated in those ecosystems, that specificity is useful; comparable Helmet coverage must be demonstrated rather than assumed. (Vendor product coverage page)
Archestra: inspectability. Public code, documentation, and deployment instructions support technical inspection. This does not remove self-hosting costs or guarantee equal security coverage; enterprise licensing boundaries also need review. (Public code repository)

Potential points of fit for Helmet

Customer comparisons and market share

No verified customer account was found explaining a choice between Helmet and these competitors.
No documented Helmet-to-competitor migration was found.
No defensible market-share percentage was established.
Helmet’s December 2025 customer report and Palo Alto’s 2026 quote-based customer measure have different dates and definitions; a numerical market-share comparison would be misleading. (Local tech press coverage)

G2’s alternatives page lists contact-center and privacy products alongside security tools. Those taxonomy-driven suggestions should not substitute for a workflow-specific agent-security shortlist. (G2 product and seller pages)

	Helmet Security	Noma Security	MintMCP	Prisma AIRS
Starting price	Not published; contact-led	Published high-value contract dimension; scope must be confirmed	Custom quote; active-user licensing plus platform fees	Quote/credit-based; no verified universal starting dollar price
Intended use	Teams seeking connected agent discovery, registry, enforcement, and evidence	Broad AI security programs including automated adversarial testing	Teams centralizing governed MCP and LLM access	Organizations seeking broad AI protection within the Palo Alto ecosystem
Documented distinction	Existing-stack discovery and several enforcement deployment options	Explicit red-teaming and access-control product coverage	Published authentication, residency, and commercial-model detail	Broader published portfolio and larger disclosed commercial adoption
Evidence gap	Limited customer validation and public technical/commercial detail	Marketplace figure is not directly comparable without defined scope	Quote opacity; centralized gateway must cover relevant workflows	Credit allocation and consumption complicate cost comparison
Deployment detail	Hosted, self-hosted/local proxy, Bedrock/APIM orchestration	Multiple AI surfaces; validate environment-specific implementation	Self-hosted option; EU/US residency advertised	BYOL using Software NGFW credits
Public proof	Unnamed early traction; briefing coverage	Named vendor-hosted testimonials	Vendor security and operational documentation	Public-company adoption disclosures, with important definitions

Helmet Security

01Competitive Landscape

Areas where alternatives have clearer advantages

Potential points of fit for Helmet

Customer comparisons and market share

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Areas where alternatives have clearer advantages

Potential points of fit for Helmet

Customer comparisons and market share

02Market Map