Kyde vs Alinia AI
Alinia and Kyde serve the same regulated buyer with different instruments. Alinia is compliance as code: an SDK and API that wraps your AI calls and checks inputs and outputs against configurable rules, with prebuilt rule sets for frameworks like MiFID II and the EU AI Act. Kyde is governance infrastructure: an external gateway at the network boundary that enforces deterministic policy on every agent action and records it in a hash-chained, tamper-evident ledger. Alinia governs the calls your developers wrap. Kyde governs everything that crosses the boundary, wrapped or not.
Choose Alinia if
- →You want content level compliance checks on model outputs, with domain rule sets for financial services
- →Your AI surface is a handful of applications your own team builds and can integrate an SDK into
- →You value fintech references. Their anchor customer is a major bank.
Choose Kyde if
- →Your compliance duty covers all agents, including the ones nobody integrated anything into
- →You need rollout without touching code: one environment variable or group policy, five minutes
- →You need evidence, not just filtering: a hash-chained, tamper-evident record of what every agent did and what was blocked
| Alinia AI | Kyde | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | SDK and API wrapped around AI calls | External gateway at the network boundary |
| No-code deployment, shadow-agent coverage | Partial: no-code platform UI for policy configuration, but enforcement requires API integration per application | Yes: network egress, one environment variable, covers uninstrumented agents |
| Blocks before execution | Yes, for wrapped calls, content-rule based | Yes, deterministic deny-by-default for all boundary traffic |
| What is checked | Content of inputs and outputs against compliance rules | Structure of actions: which agent, which tool, which endpoint, under which policy |
| Cryptographic audit trail | Audit logging, software modifiable | Hash-chained, tamper-evident, vendor-independent ledger (Ed25519 signing on Enterprise) |
| Regulatory posture | Output checking may raise Article 25 questions your counsel should assess | External proxy, models and pipelines untouched, deployer status preserved |
| Sweet spot | Fintech content compliance | Regulated enterprises governing whole agent fleets |
What Alinia does well
Alinia earned its place: a major bank as anchor customer is not luck. Prebuilt rule sets for MiFID II and the EU AI Act save real work for teams that need domain-specific content checks, and checking what a model says is a legitimate layer that a structural gateway does not replace. If your problem is "our advisory chatbot must never make an unauthorized product recommendation," content guardrails are the right-shaped tool.
Where the approaches differ
Two differences decide most evaluations. First, the integration model. An API layer governs what developers wire in. Alinia now offers a no-code platform UI for configuring policies, which helps compliance teams, but the enforcement itself still lives in the application path: every new application is a new integration, and every agent that skipped the wrapper is outside compliance. There is a second-order problem too: an enforcement layer that lives inside the application shares the application's fate. If the agent can touch the lock, it can pick it.
Kyde inverts this: the boundary governs by default, outside the agent's reach, and nobody has to remember to opt in. In a company with two AI apps, the difference is small. In a company where every team ships agents, it is the whole game.
What that means in an audit
What a regulator sees afterwards differs too. Content filtering produces a decision in the moment. Kyde produces evidence that survives the moment: a hash-chained record of every action, allowed and blocked, that no vendor and no agent can rewrite. When the audit comes, the question is not whether you filtered. It is whether you can prove what happened. One question belongs to your lawyers, not to us: solutions that modify model inputs or outputs inline should be assessed against the substantial modification threshold in Article 25 of the EU AI Act, which can shift provider duties onto the deployer. Kyde's external proxy leaves models and pipelines untouched by design.
Can you run both?
Yes, cleanly. Alinia checks content inside applications you build. Kyde governs the boundary all agents cross. Several layers of a real defense. If budget forces a choice, start where the liability is broadest: the boundary, since it covers agents you have not built yet.
Can Alinia and Kyde run together?
Yes, cleanly. Alinia checks content inside applications you build. Kyde governs the boundary all agents cross. Several layers of a real defense.
We only have two AI applications. Do we still need a boundary?
You have two you know about. The Kyde Starter exists to answer how many you actually have. It is free, and the answer routinely surprises teams.
Which one satisfies EU AI Act logging duties?
Article 12 asks for automatic, trustworthy logs for high-risk systems. A hash-chained, tamper-evident, vendor-independent ledger is built for that duty, with Ed25519 signing available on paid tiers. High-risk enforcement begins December 2, 2027. NIS-2 and DORA apply today.
Govern every agent, not just the wrapped ones.
Deploy the Kyde Gateway Starter in five minutes, or talk to us.
Who it's for · Pricing · FAQ