Exogram vs Lakera Guard
“Prompt injection defense. Not execution defense.”
Executive Architecture Matrix
Side-by-side technical capability breakdown between Lakera Guard and Exogram.
| Technical Dimension | Lakera Guard | Exogram Authority Runtime |
|---|---|---|
| Protection Surface | Input (prompts) | Output (actions) |
| What It Blocks | Malicious inputs | Malicious actions |
| Clean Input Risk | Assumes clean input = safe output | Validates regardless of input quality |
Execution Failure Containment
How unexpected autonomous errors, injection payloads, and runaway cycles are intercepted in live production.
SQL & Data Mutations
Lakera Guard relies on natural language alignment or connection permissions. Unsanitized mutations execute against target databases.
Intercepts the SQL AST in 0.07ms, enforcing strict read-only constraints and table mutation barriers.
Rogue API & Retry Loops
Agents can enter cyclical retry states upon receiving error responses, firing thousands of unauthorized tool calls.
Tracks state transitions across turns, halting infinite loops and duplicate mutations on turn 2.
Memory Drift & Poisoning
Context windows accumulate hallucinations and conflicting state over long-horizon sessions.
Maintains SHA-256 state hashing across all memory writes, verifying facts before persistence.
Latency & Compute Footprint
Deterministic CPU execution eliminates secondary LLM inference delays and API billing.
Dependent on secondary model API hops, token generation, or cloud roundtrips.
Compiled deterministic bitmask logic gates running on standard host CPU.
Exogram evaluates actions inside your application process in 0.07ms with zero network hops and zero recurring token costs.
Real-World Production Scenario
Concrete breakdown of an autonomous agent failure mode in live production.
Un-Gated Action Execution vs. Governed Autonomy Interception
Without Exogram Protection
With Exogram Interception
The Plain English Verdict
Use Lakera for input safety. Use Exogram because clean inputs don't guarantee safe actions. Both are needed.
Prompt Injection Defense: Why LLM-as-a-Judge Fails in Production
Using a probabilistic model to police another probabilistic model introduces latency, non-determinism, and compounding attack surfaces. Execution boundaries must be evaluated in compiled code.
What Lakera Guard Does
- •Lakera detects and blocks prompt injection attacks, PII leakage, and toxic content.
- •Real-time content filtering API for LLM inputs and outputs.
- •Protects the input surface — stopping malicious prompts before they reach the model.
- •Does not govern execution. Clean inputs can still produce harmful outputs.
What Exogram Does
- Exogram protects the execution surface — stopping harmful actions before they reach your systems.
- Prompt injection defense stops malicious inputs. Execution governance stops malicious actions.
- A perfectly clean prompt can still generate a destructive tool call. Exogram catches it.
Is Lakera Guard vulnerable to execution drift?
Run a static analysis on your agent tool-calling pipeline below.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Exogram detect prompt injection?
Exogram detects prompt injection patterns in tool call payloads as one of its 8 policy rules. But its primary function is execution governance, not input filtering. For comprehensive injection defense, use Lakera alongside Exogram.