Arcade.dev
Agent identity & tool-calling runtime
Arcade.dev is an agent authorization and tool-calling runtime — "SSO for AI agents." Built by ex-Okta/Auth0 engineers, it lets agents act as the real user via OAuth, brokering tokens and secrets so tool calls run with the right identity and scopes, and enforcing per-action authorization at runtime.
Source: arcade.dev
TrueFoundry
Enterprise AI gateway (LLM + MCP + agent)
TrueFoundry is an enterprise AI gateway that unifies LLM, MCP and agent traffic behind one control layer — "A Unified Control Layer For AI Agents in Production." Every agent tool call is routed through registered MCP servers with OAuth2, RBAC and metadata policies, guardrails run on the input and output paths, and a human-in-the-loop step can pause an agent before a sensitive tool call and resume only on an approval decision. Policy is authored as YAML and applied via CLI in a GitOps flow.
Source: truefoundry.com
How do Arcade.dev and TrueFoundry compare?
12 criteria that decide whether an enterprise can prove — not just hope — that its AI agents stay inside policy.
| Criterion | Arcade | TrueFoundry |
|---|---|---|
| Deterministic, rule-based authorization Provable allow/deny decisions, not ML/probabilistic detection | ● | ● |
| Pre-execution enforcement Evaluates and blocks an action before it executes | ● | ● |
| Segregation of Duties enforcement Conflict-of-duty rules across agent actions | ○ | ○ |
| Excessive-agency prevention / least privilege Scopes each agent to the narrowest action surface | ◐ | ◐ |
| Design-time action-surface mapping Maps what an agent can do before it ships | ◐ | ○ |
| Compliance-classified tools catalog Tools/MCP servers pre-scored against SoD & regulations at design time | ◐ | ◐ |
| Full lifecycle coverage (design-time + runtime) Governs the agent before and during production | ◐ | ◐ |
| Named-approver human-in-the-loop routing Routes risky actions to specific accountable approvers | ◐ | ● |
| SOX / GDPR / financial-GRC control mapping & evidence Maps agent actions to financial & privacy control obligations | ○ | ◐ |
| AI-specific standards (ISO 42001, EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, OWASP LLM) Alignment to emerging AI governance standards | ○ | ● |
| Immutable / tamper-evident audit ledger Cryptographically defensible evidence of every decision | ◐ | ◐ |
| GRC / internal-audit / IT-governance buyer fit Built for the compliance owner, not only the security engineer | ○ | ◐ |
What is Arcade.dev best at?
- OAuth token brokering and agent identity — its crown jewel, built by ex-Okta/Auth0 engineers
- Deterministic, scope-based authorization checks on each tool call
- Broad MCP runtime — 7,500+ tools across 81 servers, with an open-source SDK
- Pre/post-execution hooks that can inspect and block requests inline
What is TrueFoundry best at?
- Human-in-the-loop that pauses the agent before a state-changing tool call and resumes only after an approval decision
- Multi-stage release approvals with named reviewer attribution and timestamped decisions
- The most explicit AI-standards documentation in this set — published ISO/IEC 42001 and EU AI Act alignment guidance
- One gateway across LLM, MCP and agent traffic, with every tool call carrying OAuth2, RBAC and metadata policy
- Deploys in VPC, on-prem or air-gapped, with SOC 2, HIPAA and GDPR; runs at genuine production scale
What do Arcade.dev and TrueFoundry both leave to you?
Arcade.dev and TrueFoundry secure how agents operate — but neither enforces Segregation of Duties, maps an agent's action surface at design time, or produces SOX/GDPR-grade compliance evidence. That is the layer LangGuard adds.
- Deterministic, rule-based authorization on every action — reproducible and auditable, not probabilistic
- Segregation-of-Duties enforcement built in — the only vendor in this set to ship it
- Design-time action-surface mapping plus a compliance-classified tools catalog (SoD, SOX, GDPR, ISO 42001)
- Named-approver human-in-the-loop routing and an immutable, tamper-evident audit ledger
- Built for GRC, internal audit and IT governance — with SOX/GDPR control evidence
Which should you choose?
Arcade.dev and TrueFoundry are both strong runtime security tools. If your requirement is deterministic authorization, Segregation of Duties, design-time action-surface mapping, and audit-grade compliance evidence, LangGuard governs what agents are allowed to do — before they do it — and works alongside either.
Request Free TrialCommon questions
What is the difference between Arcade.dev and TrueFoundry?
Arcade.dev is categorised as Agent identity & tool-calling runtime. TrueFoundry is categorised as Enterprise AI gateway (LLM + MCP + agent). The practical difference is where each one sits relative to the agent's action: one governs the request path, the other governs the decision to allow the action at all.
Does Arcade.dev enforce Segregation of Duties?
Arcade.dev does not enforce Segregation of Duties. Segregation of Duties is a conflict-of-duty rule across an agent's actions — the control that stops one agent both raising and approving the same transaction. It is the criterion most agent-security tools leave to the customer.
Does TrueFoundry enforce Segregation of Duties?
TrueFoundry does not enforce Segregation of Duties. Check this against your own control matrix before assuming runtime monitoring covers it — detecting a violation after the fact is not the same control as preventing it.
Which one gives you SOX and GDPR compliance evidence?
Arcade.dev does not map to SOX or GDPR control obligations. TrueFoundry produces logs that need work before an auditor will accept them. Logging that an action happened is not the same as evidence that it was authorized against a named control, which is what an internal auditor asks for.
Can Arcade.dev and TrueFoundry be used together?
Yes. They operate at different layers, so running both is common — one handles the runtime path, the other the authorization decision. The question is not which to buy but which layer you have not covered yet.
How were these 12 criteria scored?
Each vendor was scored against 12 governance and compliance criteria using public documentation, product pages and published compliance material as of August 14, 2026. Full means the capability is documented and shipping; partial means it is indirect or requires customer-authored policy; absent means it is not publicly documented. No vendor was contacted for a private briefing.
How did we score this?
This comparison is first-party research by LangGuard. Every vendor in the set is scored against the same 12 governance and compliance criteria, drawn from public product documentation, pricing and compliance pages, and published technical material, last verified .
- ● Strong — the capability is documented and shipping.
- ◐ Partial — present but indirect, or dependent on policy the customer writes.
- ○ Absent — not publicly documented at the time of review.
We publish comparisons that include our own product, so treat the LangGuard column as a vendor claim and check it the same way you would check anyone else's. Scoring is against public material only; no vendor was given a private briefing or a right of reply. Found something out of date? Tell us and we will correct it.
Sources: Arcade.dev — official site · TrueFoundry — official site
More comparisons
Find out what your agents can do —
before your auditor does.
LangGuard maps your complete agent action surface in minutes. Free for the first five managed agents. All Scopes (Finance, IT, Procurement, HR) included from day one. No policy writing required.
No credit card required · First 5 agents free · All LOB Scopes included · Enterprise ready