Cogent vs Sentrint vs Vaultak (Where Agency Security Liability Actually Sits)
These three sit at different layers, so the choice follows the surface you are actually being paid to protect: infrastructure paths, source code, or agent actions. Stacking all three into one retainer usually outruns what a mid-market client will approve, and each layer adds its own liability if you promise coverage the tool cannot deliver. Pick the layer where your delivery team already has operational depth, then price the other two as scoped add-ons rather than bundled guarantees.
By InnovaAI ResearchPublished
Which should an agency choose?
Cogent vs Sentrint vs Vaultak (Where Agency Security Liability Actually Sits)
Cogent
Best for: Agencies selling network-level threat modeling and incident response as a standalone engagement.- VR-1 maps attack paths across enterprise infrastructure rather than listing isolated CVEs
- Autonomous remediation and reporting fit a fixed-fee assessment retainer
- Cogent AI Harness gives a controlled runtime for deploying defensive agents
- Frontier reasoning model pricing is hard to quote into a small client retainer
- Attack-path mapping needs accurate infrastructure inventory the client may not have
- Findings still require a human to interpret before a client acts
Sentrint
Best for: Agencies running code review or CI work who want a recurring security line item on the same retainer.- Scans repositories for vulnerabilities, leaked credentials, and dependency risk in one pass
- Weighted security grade gives clients a number they can track quarter over quarter
- AI fix prompts hand developers a starting patch instead of a raw finding
- Covers code and dependencies only, leaving endpoints and identity out of scope
- Fix prompts still need review before they reach a client production branch
- Grades can drift as dependency trees change without any new code shipping
Vaultak
Best for: Agencies deploying client-facing AI agents who need an audit trail and a kill switch.- Sits between AI agents and the systems they touch without code changes
- Scores each agent action across five risk dimensions and can block or pause it
- Automatic rollback reverses a violating action after it has already executed
- Only relevant once a client has agents running in production
- Rollback coverage depends on how reversible the underlying system is
- Adds a governance layer the client's own engineering team must own long term
These three sit at different layers, so the choice follows the surface you are actually being paid to protect: infrastructure paths, source code, or agent actions. Stacking all three into one retainer usually outruns what a mid-market client will approve, and each layer adds its own liability if you promise coverage the tool cannot deliver. Pick the layer where your delivery team already has operational depth, then price the other two as scoped add-ons rather than bundled guarantees.