Side by side
CyberSecEval vs GLACIS
Both stand on llm security tools. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Free plan Open source APILinuxMac+2
CyberSecEval covers several cybersecurity risks as well as defensive capabilities, with distinct benchmarks for code, prompt injection, patch generation, and SOC reasoning. AutoPatch has substantial compute and storage requirements.
Visit CyberSecEval Free plan APISelf-hostedWeb
GLACIS offers controls for AI actions and signed records that can be checked independently. Its records have stated verification limits, and evidence packs are not automated.
Visit GLACISThe facts
| CyberSecEval | GLACIS | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Yes | Not published |
| Runs on | API, Linux, Mac, Self-hosted, Web | API, Self-hosted, Web |
| Lowest paid plan | Free or on request | Free or on request |
| Plans published | 1 | 1 |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | meta-llama.github.io | glacis.io |
| On llm security tools | #1 of 31 | #4 of 31 |
CyberSecEval: what it does well
- Tests prompt injection across text and visual attacks
- Checks insecure code suggestions in two settings
- Includes malware analysis and threat-intelligence benchmarks
- MIT license permits research and commercial use
What to know first
- AutoPatch requires Podman
- AutoPatch recommends at least 80 CPUs and 8 TB storage
- Apple Silicon MacBooks are not currently supported for AutoPatch
GLACIS: what it does well
- Can hold, constrain, or deny actions.
- Creates signed records in an open format.
- Record checks do not require an account.
- Free account requires no card.
- Available through API, self-hosted, and web options.
What to know first
- Evidence packs must be assembled by hand.
- Record checks do not verify action correctness.
- A record check cannot establish that every event was captured.
Alternatives to CyberSecEval Alternatives to GLACIS The whole list