Is Ent or Onyx better for AI endpoint control?

Neither is scored on this site. Ent describes 2 of four product control types and Onyx 3 on the pages we read, and they differ on 7 recorded facts. Which fits depends on the AI tools people use, your devices, where the work happens and whether you block or guide; the finder checks those.

Which of the two decides on a tool call before it runs?

Ent: Partly. Onyx: Matches. Warn or ask: Ent Matches, Onyx Matches.

Do Ent or Onyx publish prices?

Ent: Not published (demo request). Onyx: Not published.

HEAD-TO-HEAD · FACTS ONLY

Ent vs Onyx: AI endpoint control facts side by side

Short answer

Ent describes 2 of the four product control types on the pages we read and Onyx describes 3; they differ on AI or MCP gateway. On decisions, Ent describes some control over tool calls and Onyx decides on a tool call before it runs. We do not score either; the right choice depends on the AI tools people use, your devices, your current stack and whether you block or guide.

By The Device Desk · Endpoint AI Finder · Published 2026-10-11

Desk research from public vendor pages read on 27 September and 11 October 2026. Profiles follow our published method; we did not run the products.

Vendor pages read September and October 2026 · updated 2026-10-13

Where do their controls sit?

Filled or hatched marker: Ent
Dashed teal ring: Onyx, described

DEV Filled marker: described on the product pages we read
DEV Hatched marker: partly described (another component, a narrower scope, or method not detailed)
DEV Dashed marker: not in our sources (it may exist; we did not find it)

The map shows where each product's own pages describe a control, or where your answers point. It is not a measure of how well a product works.

What are the facts, side by side?

Ent and Onyx Security, from each product's own pages. Differs is computed from recorded statuses, not wording.
Fact	Ent	Onyx
Owner	None	None
Positioning	An intent-aware AI endpoint: one programmable policy for people and AI agents, with interventions from a soft nudge to a hard block, an on-device small language model that classifies sensitive data, and investigation timelines written in plain language. Use cases: insider risk, last-mile threats such as ClickFix, AI usage control and data security.	"The Secure AI Control Plane for the Agentic Era": inline inspection of prompts, tool calls and model responses across browser AI, coding assistants, desktop AI agents, cloud workloads and MCP servers. Based in Tel Aviv and New York.
How it reaches devices	A single lightweight agent across Windows, macOS, Linux and modern browsers, run as SaaS or self-hosted in your own cloud; rollout through MDM is not stated. Source: Ent press: intent-aware prevention for AI agents, 30 July 2026 · Read 13 Oct 2026	Endpoint agents, browser extensions, APIs and gateways. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
On-device control	DescribedA single lightweight agent across Windows, macOS and Linux with one programmable policy for people and AI agents. Source: Ent press: intent-aware prevention for AI agents, 30 July 2026 · Read 13 Oct 2026	DescribedEndpoint agents cover coding assistants and desktop AI agents. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Browser extension	DescribedBrowser-extension deployments generally available at launch. Source: Ent press: $100M seed, 16 June 2026 · Read 13 Oct 2026	DescribedBrowser extensions cover browser AI. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Network or SSE proxy	Not in our sourcesNot described on the pages we read.	Not in our sourcesNot described on the pages we read.
AI or MCP gatewayDiffers	Not in our sourcesNot described on the pages we read.	DescribedGateways and APIs inspect traffic inline. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Names the coding agents it coversDiffers	MatchesNames OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, Claude Cowork, GitHub Copilot and Cursor. Source: Ent press: intent-aware prevention for AI agents, 30 July 2026 · Read 13 Oct 2026	PartlyCovers coding assistants; specific tools are not named on the pages we read. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Decides on a tool call before it runsDiffers	PartlyBlocks risky agent behavior where needed; per-tool-call mechanics are not described. Source: Ent press: intent-aware prevention for AI agents, 30 July 2026 · Read 13 Oct 2026	MatchesInspects every prompt, tool call and model response inline. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Controls what goes into browser AIDiffers	PartlyClassifies sensitive data at the point of use on the device and in browsers; prompt-level controls are not detailed. Source: Ent press: intent-aware prevention for AI agents, 30 July 2026 · Read 13 Oct 2026	MatchesCan mask data in browser AI as well as block it. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Rolls out through EDR or device management you run	Not in our sources	Not in our sources
Can warn or ask instead of only blocking	MatchesInterventions range from a soft nudge to a hard block. Source: Ent homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026	MatchesFive actions: alert, block, mask, steer or ask. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Can block an agent, tool or action	MatchesA hard block is one of its interventions. Source: Ent homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026	MatchesBlock is one of five actions. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Has a watch-only or simulation modeDiffers	Not in our sources	PartlyAlert is one of five actions; a simulation mode is not described. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Records who or what took each actionDiffers	MatchesNatural-language investigation timelines. Source: Ent press: intent-aware prevention for AI agents, 30 July 2026 · Read 13 Oct 2026	PartlyIntegrates with Okta, Entra and Splunk; separating a person from an agent is not described. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Also covers SaaS, cloud or homegrown AIDiffers	Not in our sources	MatchesCloud workloads and MCP servers as well as devices. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Has a public price or tiers (vendor site or marketplace)	Not in our sources	Not in our sources
Built into	None	None
Works with	None in our sources	Lists CrowdStrike among its integrations. Source: Onyx Security: AI security platform · Read 27 Sep 2026
Price	Not published (demo request). Source: Ent homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026	Not published. Source: Onyx Security homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026

Where do they differ?

AI or MCP gateway: Ent is not in our sources; Onyx describes it.
Names the coding agents it covers: Ent matches; Onyx partly matches.
Decides on a tool call before it runs: Ent partly matches; Onyx matches.
Controls what goes into browser AI: Ent partly matches; Onyx matches.
Has a watch-only or simulation mode: Ent is not in our sources; Onyx partly matches.
Records who or what took each action: Ent matches; Onyx partly matches.
Also covers SaaS, cloud or homegrown AI: Ent is not in our sources; Onyx matches.

Choose Ent if

You want one policy for people and AI agents, with nudges as well as blocks
You need device and browser coverage from one agent

Choose Onyx if

You want masking or steering rather than only allow or block
AI use spans the browser, desktop apps, coding tools and cloud workloads

Which limits should you check?

Ent

Per-tool-call mechanics and rollout through MDM are not described on the pages we read.
Uses its own agent, and no price is published.

Onyx

Uses its own endpoint agents and browser extensions, so there is something new to roll out to devices.
No pricing published, and specific coding agents are not named on the pages we read.

Line up Ent and Onyx with others Run the finder