What differs
- Who tests: Mindgard engagements are run by its researchers with a named lead from scoping through retest; Gray Swan engagements use hand-selected researchers from its Arena network.
- Automated product: Mindgard’s platform reruns tests in CI/CD and keeps successful attacks as regression tests; Gray Swan’s Shade runs autonomous adversarial campaigns and supports testing again after remediation.
- Framework mapping: Mindgard maps findings to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications and MITRE ATLAS technique IDs; Gray Swan’s service page does not reference OWASP or MITRE ATLAS.
- Deliverables: both list reproducible transcripts, severity ratings, and a remediation roadmap; Mindgard adds control-effectiveness verdicts, and Gray Swan adds raw data for engineering.
- Published evidence: Mindgard shows a SOC 2 Type 2 badge; Gray Swan’s Trust Center could not be verified for this profile.
Who each tends to fit
Teams that need ATLAS-tagged findings for auditors may look at Mindgard’s published mapping. Teams that want researchers drawn from a large competitive red-teaming network may look at Gray Swan. Confirm certifications and retest terms with both.
Last checked: . No winner declared.