HEAD TO HEAD
Bay matched with Ent: agentic endpoint security compared
SHORT ANSWER
On our published weights Bay scores higher overall, 7.20 to 5.80 out of 10. Bay scores higher on stop before it runs, verdict range, capability rules, actor trail and rollout path; Ent scores higher on named agent coverage and public proof; they tie on cloud and workspace reach. Which fits depends on which of those criteria matters most to you.
By The Agent Desk · Agentic Endpoint Compare · Published 2026-10-11
Desk research from public vendor pages, press releases and standards pages read on 27 September and 11 October 2026. Editorial assessment; we did not run the products.
How do they compare at a glance?
Bay
Pre-execution control on employee devices, rolled out through EDR or MDM
Rank 1 of 6 among agentic endpoint vendors
Ent
One intent-aware policy for people and agents
Rank 4 of 6 among agentic endpoint vendors
Which scores higher on each criterion?
| Criterion | Weight | Bay | Ent | Higher |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stop before it runs | 25% | 9 / 10 Evaluates prompts, pre-tool calls and post-tool responses on supported agent surfaces and returns Allow, Ask or Deny locally, stated as under 4ms (vendor-stated). Source: Bay blog: Ghostjacking (August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026 | 7 / 10 Steps in at the moment of risk and blocks risky agent behavior; per-tool-call mechanics are not described. Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Bay |
| Verdict range | 15% | 7 / 10 Documents 4 of six verdict types: Block or deny, Ask a person, Simulate first and Remove or scale back. "Returns Allow, Ask or Deny; new rules can run in Simulation Mode first; MCP Control removes disallowed MCP servers in Enforcement mode." Source: Bay blog: Ghostjacking (re-read 11 October 2026) · Read 11 Oct 2026 Source: Bay homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026 | 3 / 10 Documents 2 of six verdict types: Block or deny and Alert or warn. "Customized actions from a soft nudge to a hard block." Source: Ent homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026 Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Bay |
| Capability rules | 15% | 9 / 10 Capability rules for shell and code execution, process spawning, package installation, cloud CLIs, containers, Kubernetes, browser automation and system changes, plus managed settings for Claude Code, Codex and Claude Desktop. Source: Bay blog: Ghostjacking (August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026 | 7 / 10 One programmable policy for people and AI agents (SACR names the language EntLang), and app control that can allow, block, deny or restrict usage. Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Bay |
| Actor trail | 10% | 8 / 10 Records who triggered an action, whether a human was involved, and the complete chain from prompt to system action. Source: Bay homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026 | 7 / 10 Natural-language investigation timelines built as events happen; the same policy covers people and agents. Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Bay |
| Rollout path | 10% | 9 / 10 Deploys through existing EDR or MDM as an ephemeral binary that runs and exits; described as agentless by design. Source: Bay blog: Ghostjacking (August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026 | 6 / 10 A single lightweight agent across Windows, macOS, Linux and modern browsers, SaaS or self-hosted; rollout through MDM is not stated. Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Bay |
| Cloud and workspace reach | 10% | 3 / 10 Described as endpoint security for enterprise endpoints; its rules govern cloud CLIs, containers and Kubernetes called from the device, but bay.io, re-read on 11 October 2026, does not describe coverage for agents running in cloud workspaces or cloud-hosted apps. Source: Bay homepage (re-read 11 October 2026) · Read 11 Oct 2026 | 3 / 10 Endpoint and browser; agents in cloud workspaces, cloud workloads or SaaS platforms are not described. Source: Ent homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Tie |
| Named agent coverage | 5% | 5 / 10 Names 3 of the six agents we track: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex and Claude Desktop. Source: Bay blog: Ghostjacking (August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026 | 7 / 10 Names 4 of the six agents we track: Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot and OpenAI Codex. Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Ent |
| Public proof | 10% | 3 / 10 The smallest public footprint of the scored products: a single homepage, two blog posts, no documentation portal and no published pricing. Source: Bay homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026 | 6 / 10 Came out of stealth on 16 June 2026 with a $100 million seed led by Decibel, generally available on Windows, macOS, Linux and browser extensions; no pricing. Source: Ent press release: $100M seed (16 June 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Ent |
Which verdicts does each document?
| Verdict type | Bay | Ent |
|---|---|---|
| Block or deny | Documented | Documented |
| Ask a person | Documented | Not described |
| Alert or warn | Not described | Documented |
| Mask or modify | Not described | Not described |
| Simulate first | Documented | Not described |
| Remove or scale back | Documented | Not described |
- Bay: "Returns Allow, Ask or Deny; new rules can run in Simulation Mode first; MCP Control removes disallowed MCP servers in Enforcement mode."
Source: Bay blog: Ghostjacking (re-read 11 October 2026) · Read 11 Oct 2026
Source: Bay homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026
- Ent: "Customized actions from a soft nudge to a hard block."
Source: Ent homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026
Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026
How does each reach devices?
Bay
Through existing EDR or MDM using Wave, an ephemeral binary that runs, scans and exits. Bay describes the product as agentless by design.
Source: Bay blog: Ghostjacking (August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026
Ent
A single lightweight agent across Windows, macOS, Linux and modern browsers, offered as SaaS or self-hosted; rollout through MDM is not stated.
Source: Ent press release: intent-aware prevention for AI agents (30 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026
Which agents does each name?
| Agent | Bay | Ent |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | Named | Named |
| Cursor | Not named | Named |
| GitHub Copilot | Not named | Named |
| OpenAI Codex | Named | Named |
| Windsurf | Not named | Not named |
| Claude Desktop | Named | Not named |
| Named | 3 of 6 | 4 of 6 |
Which should you choose?
Choose Bay if you need stop before it runs and capability rules. Bay is best for: Pre-execution control on employee devices, rolled out through EDR or MDM.
Choose Ent if you need stop before it runs and capability rules. Ent is best for: One intent-aware policy for people and agents.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for agentic endpoint security, Bay or Ent?
On our published weights Bay scores higher overall, 7.20 to 5.80 out of 10. See the criterion table above for where each scores higher.
Which stops an agent action before it runs more fully, Bay or Ent?
Bay scores higher on stopping an action before it runs (9 to 7). Bay: Evaluates prompts, pre-tool calls and post-tool responses on supported agent surfaces and returns Allow, Ask or Deny locally, stated as under 4ms (vendor-stated). Ent: Steps in at the moment of risk and blocks risky agent behavior; per-tool-call mechanics are not described.
Do Bay and Ent publish prices?
Bay: not published. Bay publishes no pricing. Demo requests go through bay.io/demo. Ent: not published. Ent publishes no pricing.