llmthreat
For vendors 21 vendors · 10 tools Matrix Vendors

Noma Security vs Straiker: Which One Covers More of the OWASP LLM Top 10 in 2026?

Noma Security is AI-SPM / Runtime Protection; Straiker sits in Agentic AI Security. Noma Security covers 5 of 10 OWASP LLM risks and Straiker covers 5, as of 2026-07-13. Based on llmthreat's coverage scoring, Noma Security and Straiker cover the same number of OWASP LLM Top 10 risks (5 each); the difference is in which ones. The full row-by-row diff is below.

Sponsored Comparison — this slot is available to category sponsors. Paid placement does not alter the coverage data or verdict below.

Spec comparison

AttributeNoma SecurityStraiker
CategoryAI-SPM / Runtime ProtectionAgentic AI Security
DeploymentSaaS and self-hosted (enterprise); covers full AI/agent lifecycleSaaS; inline runtime protection plus API/agent integration
Best forEnterprises wanting one platform for AI/ML supply-chain posture, agent runtime protection and framework-mapped governanceEnterprises deploying autonomous AI agents and MCP servers that need agent discovery, adversarial testing and runtime blocking
Founded20232024
Funding$132M$85M
StatusActiveActive

OWASP LLM Top 10 coverage: Noma Security vs Straiker

This diff is llmthreat's editorial read of both vendors' public documentation as of 2026-07-13, not an audited or vendor-endorsed score.

OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025) coverage diff — as of 2026-07-13
OWASP LLM RiskNoma SecurityStraiker
LLM01 Prompt Injection Covered Covered
LLM02 Sensitive Information Disclosure Covered Covered
LLM03 Supply Chain Covered Partial
LLM04 Data and Model Poisoning Covered Partial
LLM05 Improper Output Handling Unverified Partial
LLM06 Excessive Agency Covered Covered
LLM07 System Prompt Leakage Partial Covered
LLM08 Vector and Embedding Weaknesses Partial Partial
LLM09 Misinformation Partial Covered
LLM10 Unbounded Consumption Partial Partial

Where they differ

Straiker covers LLM05 Improper Output Handling where Noma Security doesn't.

On the rest, they overlap. Past those gaps the decision is depth per risk, deployment, and price, not breadth.

Which should you choose?

On raw counts it's a tie at 5 covered risks each — the difference is which risks. Noma Security is built for enterprises wanting one platform for AI/ML supply-chain posture, agent runtime protection and framework-mapped governance, while Straiker suits enterprises deploying autonomous AI agents and MCP servers that need agent discovery, adversarial testing and runtime blocking. Both rows sit in the full coverage matrix — read the profiles before deciding: Noma Security and Straiker.

Frequently asked questions

Does Noma Security or Straiker cover more of the OWASP LLM Top 10?

Neither — both cover 5 of the ten risks by our scoring, though not the same ones. The diff table above shows where they split.

Are Noma Security and Straiker independent?

Noma Security is independent; Straiker is independent, as of 2026-07-13.

Last verified . Sources: https://noma.security/blog/noma-security-raises-100m-to-drive-adoption-of-ai-agent-security/, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/straiker-raises-64m-series-a-to-secure-the-agentic-workforce-302812638.html, OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025). Funding and repo figures are third-party and go stale. Re-verify before you rely on them.
Informational, not professional security advice — verify both vendors' claims against OWASP, MITRE, and the vendors directly before a decision. OWASP, MITRE, and the listed vendors and maintainers do not endorse llmthreat.com.