Comparatifs

Entro Security vs Oasis Security: Two Approaches to Managing Non-Human Identities

API keys, service accounts and AI agents now outnumber human logins on most networks. Entro focuses on finding and detecting them; Oasis focuses on governing and rotating their access.

Every API key, service account and AI agent your systems create is a "non-human identity" (NHI) — and on most networks today, there are more of them than actual employees, each one a potential way in if it leaks or gets abused. Entro Security and Oasis Security both sell platforms built to manage this sprawl, and both list each other (plus Token Security and Onyx Security) as their closest competitors — a sign this category is still young enough that most vendors are watching each other closely rather than having settled into clearly separate lanes.

Entro Security: find everything, then watch for anomalies

Entro Security leads with discovery breadth — it claims coverage of 1,200+ types of non-human identities and secrets across cloud environments, code repositories, CI/CD pipelines, messaging tools and secret vaults, tied to a dedicated real-time behavioral detection engine (branded NHIDR) that flags when an identity starts acting outside its normal pattern. It's also picked up a G2 High Performer badge, a rare independent signal in a category where most vendors are pre-IPO and hard to compare on public data.

The honest limit: pricing is entirely quote-based, scaled by number of identities, AI agents, integrations and environments, so there's no way to estimate cost without a sales call. Entro itself acknowledges heavy functional overlap with Oasis and Token Security, making a clean side-by-side hard without requesting quotes from all three.

Oasis Security: govern the full lifecycle, not just detect problems

Oasis Security takes a governance-first angle: intent-based access management (deciding what an identity is allowed to do based on what it's actually trying to do, rather than a static role), combined with automated, policy-driven secret rotation across the identity's entire lifecycle. It's explicitly built for Fortune 500 and heavily regulated organizations — healthcare, logistics, insurance, finance, energy — rather than smaller teams.

The tradeoff: like Entro, pricing is completely opaque (based on contract length and terms), which usually means a long enterprise sales cycle. Setting up intent-based access policies is also inherently more configuration-heavy than a simpler role-based model, and Oasis is upfront that it's a weaker fit for a small team or SMB than for a large regulated enterprise.

Side by side

Entro SecurityOasis Security
Core strengthDiscovery breadth + behavioral detectionIntent-based access governance + secret rotation
Identity coverage1,200+ identity/secret typesFull non-human identity lifecycle
Independent signalG2 High PerformerNot disclosed
Target customerSecurity/DevOps teams managing identities at scaleFortune 500, regulated large enterprise
PricingQuote-based, tiered by identity countQuote-based, contract-length dependent

Pick Entro if… / Pick Oasis if…

Pick Entro Security if your first problem is visibility — you don't have a reliable inventory of every key, service account and AI agent across your stack yet, and you want a detection engine watching for anomalous behavior once you do. Pick Oasis Security if you already know your NHI sprawl exists and need to actively govern it — enforcing what each identity can access based on intent, and automatically rotating credentials — especially inside a large, regulated organization where manual secret rotation isn't realistic at scale.

The honest bottom line: both vendors admit the market is still maturing and that they overlap heavily with each other and with Token Security and Onyx Security. Neither publishes pricing, so the real test is requesting quotes from more than one and comparing what each actually covers for your specific environment before committing to a multi-year contract.