Non-human identity management · November 2026 Edition
Oasis Security vs Token Security
Two of fourteen models named Oasis Security first on the direct prompt; one named Token Security. Oasis Security was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Token Security by ten and Oasis Security carries 32 labels and Token Security 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share6%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate22%12%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#8A position in a field of 18; printed, not drawn.
Labels3217A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Oasis Security reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.JumpCloud was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. JumpCloud vs Oasis Security · JumpCloud vs Token Security · Akeyless Identity Security Platform vs Oasis Security
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the non-human identity management page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Oasis SecurityFirst choices, of fourteen modelsToken Security
Direct21
Paraphrase00
Comparative20
Budget-constrained003 against Oasis Security
Scale-constrained10
Negative004 against Oasis Security · 2 against Token Security
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Oasis Security and Token Security were named in the same answer thirty-two times, of the 82 answers naming Oasis Security and the 35 naming Token Security. In those answers Token Security took the first choice one time and Oasis Security three.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Oasis Security and Token Security stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | ||||
| Grok 4.20 | | | ||||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | |||||
| Kimi K2 | | |||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | ||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | |
Oasis Security Token Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Oasis Security on the left and Token Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Oasis Security and Token Security stood in it.
Oasis Security first, Token Security not the choice
2 of 14 modelsToken Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniOasis Security alternatives: Aembit, Rig, SailPoint Machine Identity Security, Veza
Gemini 3.5 FlashOasis Security alternatives: Aembit, Akeyless Identity Security Platform, Entro Security
Token Security first, Oasis Security not the choice
1 of 14 modelsOasis Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-6 LunaToken Security alternatives: Aembit
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5JumpCloud alternatives: Entro Security, Natoma, Oasis Security
Grok 4.20Aembit alternatives: Astrix Security, Entro Security, Oasis Security
Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Perplexity SonarJumpCloud alternatives: Aembit, Astrix Security, Defakto, Entro Security, Microsoft Entra ID, Okta
Mistral SmallCakewalk, JumpCloud alternatives: Akeyless Identity Security Platform, Defakto
DeepSeek V4 FlashJumpCloud alternatives: Aembit, Akeyless Identity Security Platform, Clutch Security, Natoma
Llama 4 MaverickCakewalk alternatives: Identity Confluence, JumpCloud, Saviynt Identity Cloud
Qwen 3.7 FlashAkeyless Identity Security Platform, Cakewalk alternatives: Astrix Security, JumpCloud
Kimi K2Aembit alternatives: Clutch Security, Entro Security, SSOJet, WorkOS
GLM 4.7 FlashXAembit alternatives: Defakto, One Identity, Saviynt Identity Cloud
MiniMax M2.5JumpCloud alternatives: Cakewalk, Defakto, Entro Security, Identity Confluence
Muse Glimmer 30BJumpCloud alternatives: Cakewalk, Entro Security, GitGuardian NHI Governance
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
Oasis Security0%#16 of 17Token Security0%#– of 17Mid-marketThe figures above
Oasis Security leads by four points.
Oasis Security6%#4 of 18Token Security2%#8 of 18Enterprise
Oasis Security leads by ten points.
Oasis Security12%#2 of 19Token Security2%#11 of 19What the models said about Oasis Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid starting with Astrix, Oasis, Entro, or similar dedicated NHI platforms on a tight budget” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid commercial platforms like Astrix, Oasis, Entro, CyberArk/Venafi, or Keyfactor” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Oasis Security was acquired by Cyera in 2026 for ~$1B. Post-acquisition integration can lead to roadmap shifts, reduced support, or feature deprecation” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“look especially at Aembit, Oasis Security, and Astrix — they've been noted as particularly well-suited for mid-market/cloud-first teams” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“1. Oasis Security ... Select Oasis, Astrix, or Entro if your main problem is identity sprawl and blind spots” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Market-leading end-to-end NHI lifecycle platform; strong focus on AI agents and agentic access” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
What the models said about Token Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Newer or Less Proven Startups (e.g., Oasis Security, Token Security, Clutch Security, Entro Security, Astrix Security)” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strong at visibility, but its lifecycle and governance features were less mature compared to leaders.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Token Security is my first shortlist pick for broad NHI governance” GPT-6 Luna · direct prompt · first choice
“strong on discovery, visibility, ownership, dependency tracking, and risk analysis for non-human identities” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“A newer entrant focused on AI and bot identity.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared
JumpCloud vs Oasis SecurityJumpCloud vs Token SecurityAkeyless Identity Security Platform vs Oasis SecurityAkeyless Identity Security Platform vs Token SecurityAembit vs Oasis SecurityAembit vs Token SecurityOasis Security vs HashiCorp VaultOasis Security vs GitGuardian NHI GovernanceOasis Security vs SailPoint Machine Identity SecurityHashiCorp Vault vs Token SecurityGitGuardian NHI Governance vs Token SecuritySailPoint Machine Identity Security vs Token SecurityAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full NHI management standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.