Comparison
Fintra Trust vs Prompt Security
TL;DR verdict
Prompt Security is a GenAI security platform that inspects and controls LLM prompts and responses to catch injection and data leakage in the text. Fintra Trust is an AI Action Governance platform: it decides, per action and at runtime, whether an actor should be allowed to do a thing to a resource, and records the verdict as tamper-evident evidence. These solve different problems, and for most teams they are complementary rather than either-or.
What Prompt Security does well
- Real-time inspection of prompts and model responses
- Detection of prompt injection and sensitive-data leakage in text
- Visibility into how employees and apps use GenAI
- A focused layer for securing the LLM interaction itself
Where Fintra Trust differs
Prompt Security operates on the text going into and out of the model. Fintra Trust operates on the action the agent then tries to take. A prompt filter that misses an indirect injection cannot stop the resulting action; Fintra Trust can, because a manipulated agent still has to pass scope, tenant, and sensitivity checks. The two are classic defense-in-depth: filter the prompt, govern the action.
What Fintra Trust adds that this category does not
- A per-action Policy Decision Point that returns allow, step-up, review, contain, or deny
- An Action Trust Score (0–100) with the explainable factors behind it
- A hash-chained, reproducible trust ledger for every decision
- Governed actions that map themselves to SOC 2 CC6/CC7 and other controls
Side-by-side
| Dimension | Fintra Trust | Prompt Security |
|---|---|---|
| Primary job | Decide + govern the action | Inspect LLM prompts and responses |
| Layer | The action the agent takes | The prompt/response text |
| Runtime enforcement | Yes: per-action verdicts | Prompt/response controls |
| Injection defense | At the action (deterministic backstop) | At the text (detection) |
| Evidence model | Governed-action evidence | Prompt/response security events |
| Best fit | Governing agent actions | Securing the LLM interaction |
Who should pick which
Questions people ask
Is Fintra Trust a prompt firewall?
No. Prompt Security inspects the prompt and response text; Fintra Trust governs the action the agent takes afterward. They are complementary: a prompt filter reduces what reaches the model, and action governance guarantees an injected agent still cannot exceed its bounds.
Does Fintra Trust stop prompt injection?
At the action layer. It assumes an injection might slip past the text filter and defends where it matters: the manipulated agent still faces scope containment, tenant isolation, and step-up, so the harmful action is denied regardless of the prompt.
Should I use both?
Yes: this is textbook defense in depth. Filter the prompt with a GenAI security layer and govern the action with Fintra Trust, so you cover both the input and the consequence.
Which handles indirect injection?
A prompt filter tries to catch it in the content; Fintra Trust defends against its consequences by governing the resulting action, which is effective even when the instruction was hidden in a document or tool result.
Keep reading
Guides
Calculators
One finance briefing a week
New guides, checklists and benchmarks, by email. Unsubscribe from any issue.
Govern the action, not just the audit
See a live per-action verdict and trust score on your own AI agents. Talk to us: we will map it to your stack.