Credo AI vs Holistic AI: how they compare in 2026
Credo AI and Holistic AI both sell platforms that find the AI an organization runs, test and score its risk, and map it to the EU AI Act, NIST and ISO 42001. Credo AI is stronger on paper. Its terms of use are public, with a clause barring training on customer data and a sixty day export window before deletion. They promise breach notice without undue delay and cap liability at a year's fees beside an intellectual property indemnity. It also names Mastercard and Principal as customers. Holistic AI's counterweight is a published account of what its agents may do alone. Sentinel agents only observe and alert, while Operative agents act inline once a risk threshold the customer sets is crossed, with kill switches, deployment blocks and human approvals named.
Which one fits
Choose Credo AI if
- Procurement needs contract terms before a demo. Credo AI publishes its terms of use, including a bar on training models with customer data, a sixty day export window before deletion, breach notice without undue delay, and a liability cap of twelve months' fees.
- You want customer references to check. Credo AI quotes named data and governance leaders at Mastercard, Principal and AdeptID, with Microsoft and IBM describing what their integrations do.
- You need governance mapped to several frameworks with evidence generated. Credo AI ships policy packs for the EU AI Act, the NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001 and SOC 2, with approval gates and automated evidence generation in its compliance engine.
Choose Holistic AI if
- You want AI agents that can stop a risky system, under limits you set. Holistic AI's Operative agents act inline only once a customer set risk threshold is crossed, controlling which tools a system calls, what it accesses and how much it spends, with kill switches and deployment blocks.
- You want monitoring that never interferes. Holistic AI's Sentinel agents watch production AI for prompt injection, jailbreaks, data leakage, hallucination, toxicity and bias, and alert without intervening.
- You want discovery without installing software. Holistic AI finds models, agents, APIs and pipelines across AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, GitHub, Databricks, ServiceNow and SharePoint through read only connectors that need no installed agent.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models drive a core capability on top of a governance system of record that would work without them. The platform's spine is an inventory and a workflow: an AI registry with agent cards and dependency graphs, a risk and control library, policy packs mapped to named regulations, approval gates, audit trails and evidence generation. Customers could run that with human analysts filling it in, and Credo AI's own account of its history says as much, describing a 2020 to 2023 phase whose breakthrough was replacing spreadsheets and ad hoc reviews with a policy engine. What the models add is GAIA, a set of governance agents that handle intake and registration, retrieve evidence, assess risk, draft governance plans and remediate, plus automated red teaming, drift detection and classification of shadow AI. Without them, the registry, the policy packs and the workflows remain.
Holistic AI states that every capability in the platform is powered by Guardian Agents. The capabilities that depend on models are red teaming of agents and language models for jailbreak, prompt injection, toxicity, hallucination and counterfactual bias; automated testing for bias, robustness, efficacy, privacy and transparency; automated discovery and classification of AI assets across cloud, code and SaaS; and drift detection and agent observability. Without them, a central AI inventory with custom schemas and ownership tracking, a governance ontology, framework assessments against named regulations, configurable sign off workflows and audit documentation remain, and those work without a model.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Accuracy is asserted in numbers and measured in none of them, and the agreement disclaims it outright. The product page claims 10x faster compliance, 70 percent less time in engineering bottlenecks, 100 percent AI visibility and 360 degree risk coverage, none with a basis, method or test set, and a customer quote repeats the 10x figure for EU AI Act compliance. Section 8.6 of the Terms of Use says Credo AI makes no warranties or representations on the accuracy, reliability, timeliness or completeness of the services. Some questions do not apply: the platform produces risk scores, control mappings and evidence rather than legal assertions citing authority, so there is no citator and no reported case to open. What does apply matters for a product whose output is a compliance conclusion mapped to a named statute: nothing published shows how often GAIA's evidence retrieval or risk mapping is right, and no grounding method is described.
The vendor says it will identify every AI system, give full visibility into every AI system, keep a complete and always current AI inventory, and continuously discover every model, agent, API and pipeline. No figure, evaluation, test set or false negative rate is published for discovery or classification. A third party buyer's guide notes that coverage depends on the integrations, data sources, permissions and configuration in use, and that the platform should not be assumed to identify every AI system. The product tests other systems for hallucination and publishes no measurement of its own output. Its outputs are inventories, risk scores and evidence artifacts rather than legal assertions citing authority.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Credo AI says GAIA's agents automate the most time consuming governance tasks while keeping human oversight for critical decisions. The mechanisms are named: governance workflows with approval gates in the compliance module, escalation to a person in production monitoring, and escalation to a person for high risk actions in agent monitoring, fed by continuous evaluation of agent traces. Agent Governor decides before an action runs whether to allow, block, escalate or advise, and Credo AI notes that no action can be governed after it happens. GAIA's own agents can run remediation. Which actions GAIA may take unattended, what defines a critical decision or a high risk action, and what happens after a remediation agent acts wrongly are not published.
Guardian Agents work in two named modes with different powers. Sentinel agents continuously monitor what a customer's AI says in production, detecting prompt injection, jailbreak, data leakage, hallucination, toxicity and bias, and the vendor states that Sentinels provide visibility, do not interfere and inform. Operative agents act only when risk crosses a defined threshold, and what they may then do is listed: govern which tools the system calls, what it can access, how much it can spend, and agent identity, with kill switches and deployment blocks listed under policy enforcement. The review surfaces are named: human in the loop approvals, configurable sign offs, intake and review workflows, escalations and notifications, mitigation tasks, remediation tracking, and full audit trails with version history and reports on demand. The enterprise section states that workflows, risk thresholds, policies and approval processes are set by the customer. No default threshold value is published, and nothing says what happens when an Operative agent intervenes wrongly.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Credo AI names Global 2000 customers including Mastercard, PepsiCo, Cisco, Autodesk and Chevron. The product page carries attributed statements from Andrew Reiskind, Chief Data Officer at Mastercard, on managing AI risk using the AI Registry and Vendor Registry, Renee Langeness of Principal on standing up an enterprise AI governance workflow, Parth Patel of Madrigal on complementing internal processes, and partners at IBM, McKinsey and Microsoft. One figure appears inside a customer quote, attributed to an AdeptID chief data scientist, of EU AI Act compliance at ten times the speed of doing it manually, with no method attached, and the page's counters, such as 143 billion transactions protected, carry no basis. Gartner named Credo AI a Visionary in its first AI Governance Platforms Magic Quadrant. No deployment is dated.
No customer is named, no deployment is dated, no figure for what changed is published, and no customer story or case study page is published. The outcome claims that appear are unattributed and have no stated basis, such as the homepage claim that projects which sat blocked for months now get approved in days. A buyer's guide says Holistic AI's public documentation gives few specific named enterprise customer references, and puts the company at roughly fifty employees. The OECD AI catalog carries a vendor supplied entry describing the platform's research basis without naming a deployment.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Section 6.8 of the Terms of Use bars Credo AI from using, processing or accessing User Data to train, develop or improve any machine learning or AI model, and limits its access to providing, maintaining and supporting the service. The same clause names the enterprise AI tools staff may use, confines that use to Credo AI's own enterprise environment and requires deletion at the end of the engagement. Section 11.3 makes User Content the customer's Confidential Information, 11.4 limits disclosure to those with a need to know, and 6.6 sets a sixty day window after termination followed by deletion. The privacy notice, effective 8 April 2026, separately allows training on personal information, including through third parties, which sits awkwardly beside 6.8. Nothing published addresses segregation between customers or between teams inside a tenant, and section 5.2 grants Credo AI a worldwide, sublicensable license to use, modify and create derivative works from User Content to provide and improve the services.
The privacy policy states that a secure protocol is used, that databases are encrypted and that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001, all written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and contacts rather than customer content in the platform. The product page promises enterprise level protection and describes the discovery connectors as read only with no agents to install, which limits what the platform can do inside a customer estate. No customer agreement or data processing agreement is published, so no confidentiality duty is published over the code, data, models and documents the platform ingests. Nothing addresses training on customer content, separation between customers, what model providers behind the vendor's own agents may retain, or how privileged or work product material reached by a discovery scan is handled.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
A boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes regulatory conclusions, and nothing says where the output stops and legal judgment begins. The product is sold on full alignment with European AI regulation including risk classification and conformity assessments, complete NIST Risk Management Framework compliance, and audit ready documentation for every major AI regulation. Classifying a system's risk tier under the EU AI Act is a legal characterization with consequences. The company also sells advisory services described as strategic advisory on AI governance. The only related term is section 8.6, disclaiming any representation on accuracy, reliability, timeliness or completeness, which is a warranty disclaimer rather than a statement about advice. Nothing published says that a policy pack mapping, risk classification or conformity artifact is not legal advice, that counsel remains responsible for the determination, or which jurisdictions the regulatory content is maintained for. The audience is clearly professional.
The platform is sold on enforcing regulatory compliance, generating the compliance proof that legal and boards require, framework assessments against the EU AI Act with risk classification, and New York City Local Law 144 bias audits. Classifying a system's risk tier under the EU AI Act and producing a Local Law 144 bias audit carry legal consequences, and Local Law 144 requires an independent auditor. Nothing published states that these outputs are not legal advice, that counsel remains responsible for the determination, or which jurisdictions the framework content covers. The only disclaimer language published is in the website terms and conditions, which govern the website, not the platform.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Principles and a data use commitment are published; a governance framework for Credo AI's own AI is not. Credo AI publishes an ethos page, runs an annual AI trust summit, keeps a public governance insights hub and glossary, and presents itself as the company that pioneered the category, so responsible AI language is plentiful. One commitment goes beyond language: section 6.8 of the Terms of Use is a binding statement on how Credo AI handles customer data in relation to AI models, including which enterprise AI tools its own staff may use. The governance half is still missing. Nothing published names who inside Credo AI is accountable for GAIA's behavior, describes what is evaluated before a governance agent ships, reports any result, or discloses uneven output across sectors, jurisdictions or populations. The company sells ISO 42001 policy packs but does not claim the certification itself. It runs a trust center on Vanta.
Holistic AI publishes a method for assessing other organizations' AI. The platform's risk taxonomy draws on published academic work on bias, robustness, privacy and transparency, framework alignment is named down to the instrument, and bias testing, including counterfactual testing, is a core capability. The vendor's own Guardian Agents watch production traffic and intervene inline, and nothing published names who inside Holistic AI is accountable for their behavior, what is evaluated before an agent ships, or any result from such evaluation, or says whether the vendor's own bias detection performs unevenly across languages, sectors or populations. No responsible AI policy, model card or system card for the platform's own models is published. The company sells ISO 42001 alignment and does not claim the certification for itself.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The Terms of Use cover retention and deletion specifically: User Data is kept as long as needed to provide the services, with a sixty day window after termination to export using standard features, and deletion after that (6.6). Section 6.8 confines access to providing, maintaining and supporting the service, names the enterprise AI tools staff use, and has their data deleted at the end of the engagement. Incident practice is stated as notice without undue delay after becoming aware, with reasonable steps to mitigate (6.9). Aggregated and anonymized use is allowed only if it cannot be attributed to the customer (6.7), and confidential information must be returned or destroyed on request with written certification (11.7). Security is described only as reasonable administrative, technical and physical safeguards, with no encryption standard, access control, testing regime or logging commitment. No subprocessor list is published, and the data processing agreement is provided on request.
The privacy policy, written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and business contacts, states that security measures include a secure protocol and encrypted databases, that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001, and that personal data is kept for as long as reasonably necessary, or longer where a complaint or prospective litigation exists. For the AI inventories, code scan results, model artifacts and documents the platform ingests, no retention period, deletion commitment or timeline, access control statement, subprocessor list or incident notification practice is published. The platform page carries a SOC 2 badge and describes read only connectors. No security page, trust center or data processing agreement is published.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
What the vendor stands behind is published and specific, including where it stands behind nothing. Section 10.1 of the Terms of Use gives a defense and indemnity against third party claims that the services infringe or misappropriate intellectual property rights. Section 10.2 lists six exclusions, and 10.3 sets the remedies in turn: obtain the right, modify or replace the services with substantially equivalent function, or terminate with a prorated refund. Section 9.2 caps each party's total liability at the amount paid in the twelve months before the incident. Section 9.3 lifts the cap and the exclusion of indirect damages for breach of confidentiality and for the customer's breach of the license and acceptable use terms. Two express warranties carry stated remedies, each the exclusive remedy: the SaaS products will perform materially as documented, remedied by correction or termination with a prorated refund (8.4), and advisory services will be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner, remedied by performing them again or a refund (8.5). Section 8.6 disclaims everything else, including any representation on accuracy, reliability, timeliness or completeness. Section 14.1 gives a termination right with a prorated refund if a change materially reduces function. No insurance is stated, the indemnity is not carved out of the cap, and the service level agreement is mutually agreed rather than published.
No customer agreement is published, so nothing published states who bears the loss when the product is wrong: no indemnity, liability cap, warranty, service level commitment, exclusive remedy or insurance statement, and no order form, subscription terms or master agreement. The platform's Operative agents act inline in a customer's production systems, activating kill switches, blocking requests and revoking privileges, and nothing published covers an intervention wrongly triggered against a working system. The only liability language published is in the website terms and conditions, which limit liability for use of the website and its comment features.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
The product page lists integrations by category: cloud and AI operations with AWS, Azure, GCP, Databricks and Snowflake; agent platforms with Azure AI Foundry, LangChain, CrewAI and AutoGen; governance, risk and security with ServiceNow, Archer, OneTrust and Qualys; development and MLOps with GitHub, MLflow, Jira, Confluence and Slack; and custom APIs, webhooks, SDKs and connectors. The homepage claims more than 300 integrations, SDK version 1.2 shipped in August 2026, and Agent Governor connects to Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Microsoft's responsible AI leadership says the Microsoft integration gives governance leaders prescriptive guidance on what to evaluate and lets developers run governance evaluations in their own workflow. The registry also governs MCP servers and platform connections. Depth, direction and configuration for each integration are not published on the product page.
The platform page lists AWS, Azure and Google Cloud; GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket; Databricks, MLflow and Weights and Biases; OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI as model providers in the customer estate; LangGraph, CrewAI and AutoGen as agent frameworks; and ServiceNow, Jira, Confluence and SharePoint as SaaS tools. It also lists MCP, REST APIs, webhooks, SDKs, endpoints and custom connectors, with counts of fifteen or more on one module and twenty or more on the homepage. The connectors are described as read only with no agents to install, and inline enforcement runs through a named SDK. No documentation for each connector is published: what it reads, how often, and what a customer must configure or permit.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Nothing is published on where the software runs or where customer data sits. The Terms of Use describe SaaS products used through a browser or API and say nothing about hosting region, data residency, tenancy or a deployment choice. The product page describes the architecture in functional layers rather than infrastructure, and no region selector, residency commitment or single tenant option appears. Credo AI runs a trust center at trust.credo.ai on Vanta. Section 15.9 of the agreement says the services may be subject to United States and other export laws, which places Credo AI in the United States without stating where data resides.
The platform page describes the customer's infrastructure, naming the cloud providers, code repositories and data platforms it connects to, and says nothing about Holistic AI's own hosting: no region, residency commitment, tenancy model, single tenant or self hosted option, or statement of where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored. The enterprise section's promise to be infrastructure aware refers to the customer's stack. The privacy policy describes databases as cloud based and complying with ISO 27001, and the vendor's own material places the company in London, with the OECD catalog describing a US presence. No security page, trust center or data processing agreement is published.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
Credo AI names a certification, and no scope, date or reachable report is published. Its trust center at trust.credo.ai says Credo AI maintains a SOC 2 Type II examination and invests continuously in its security program so the platform meets the same governance standards it helps customers achieve. The platform's compliance module lists SOC 2 among the frameworks it supports for customers; that is a product feature, not an attestation. What would make the attestation checkable is missing: no auditor, examination period, report date, scope statement or route to the report is published. The trust center is a portal hosted on Vanta.
A SOC 2 badge marks the product in a feature strip on the platform page, with no type, trust services criteria set, auditor, examination period or scope, and the privacy policy states that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001, a claim about database infrastructure rather than a certification of the company, with no certificate number. No trust center, security page or route to a report on request is published. The product's own promise is audit ready evidence and continuous assurance for other organizations.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
Credo AI describes a proprietary intelligence layer and governance agents without saying what sits beneath them. GAIA is presented as a set of AI agents for evidence retrieval, risk assessment, incident response and remediation, powered by what the product page calls a proprietary governance knowledge graph. No model, provider, hosting location or commitment to notice of change for those agents is published. Two related facts do not answer the question. The models named on the site, ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, are customer deployments the product governs, not Credo AI's supply chain. The enterprise AI tools named in clause 6.8 of the Terms of Use are tools Credo AI's own staff use to support the service, which concerns internal operations. No subprocessor list is published.
Guardian Agents, in both Sentinel and Operative modes, perform hallucination and toxicity detection, red teaming, jailbreak and prompt injection testing and counterfactual bias analysis, and nothing published names a model, a provider, a hosting location or a commitment to notify customers of changes for any of it. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI appear on the platform page under Enterprise AI Surface Area, as part of the customer's estate that the platform discovers and governs, not as models the platform uses. No subprocessor list or data processing agreement is published, so nothing says which third party, if any, sees the code, model artifacts and documents that flow through discovery and red teaming.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Credo AI publishes no price at any level, and every path ends at Talk to an Expert or a personalized demo, offered with no card required. The modular structure is visible, with AI Registry and Discovery, Risk Intelligence, Compliance and Policy Engine, and Governance named as modules that work independently, advice to start with the registry and add others over time, and separately sold advisory services. The Terms of Use add the mechanics. Fees are set in an order form or statement of work, based on services bought rather than actual usage, noncancellable and nonrefundable, invoiced in advance and payable within thirty days, with 1.5 percent monthly interest on late amounts. Contracts renew automatically unless either party gives thirty days' notice, and price changes take effect at renewal. Section 3.4 confirms account tiers with varying features and usage limits, and exceeding them may bring charges at then current rates, though neither the tiers nor the limits are named publicly.
Three modules are named and described as separable, Identify, Protect and Enforce, with their capabilities listed in detail, and the vendor stresses modular entry points for organizations at different stages. No price, band, unit of charge or tier name is published, and every path ends at a demo request. Nothing states whether the license is priced by AI systems inventoried, by connector, by seat or by enterprise, and no usage limits or overage terms are published. Third party buyer's guides also report that pricing is not publicly listed and that a demo is needed to get it.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The platform names five stakeholder types it connects: the governance lead, the business user, product and engineering, legal and compliance, and information security and third party risk management. Regulatory coverage is named, with policy packs for the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, SOC 2, OMB M-25, Colorado's automated decision rules and the NAIC AI bulletin, and the AIUC-1 agent standard since September 2026. The knowledge graph is described as telling apart a model used in EU healthcare from one used in financial services in the United States. Customers span payments, insurance, consumer goods, networking, software and energy, including Mastercard, Principal, PepsiCo, Cisco, Autodesk and Chevron. No jurisdiction, regulation, sector or organization size is named as out of scope, and nothing describes what a law firm, as against an in house function, would do with the platform.
Named users on the platform page are the governance lead, risk and compliance, data and machine learning engineers, business owners, and information security and third party risk management, each with the outputs it expects, from board dashboards to audit evidence. Regulatory coverage is named down to the instrument: the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, New York City Local Law 144 and custom frameworks. Coverage of the AI estate is enumerated by system type, from static models to multi agent workflows, and by environment. No jurisdiction, sector, organization size or regulation is named as unsupported, no coverage boundary is given for the framework content, and legal does not appear in the vendor's own list of platform users.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Section 6.8 of the Terms of Use, effective 21 April 2026, says Credo AI will not use, process or otherwise access User Data to train, develop or improve any machine learning or artificial intelligence models, and that its access to User Data is solely to provide, maintain and support the services. The same clause names the enterprise AI tools staff may use and confines them to Credo AI's own environment. The privacy notice, effective 8 April 2026 and covering the platform, allows Credo AI to use personal information to train models or share it with third parties for model training, so the contractual bar on User Data sits beside a looser policy for personal information.
The website terms and conditions govern use of the website and its comment features, grant a license over visitor comments, and say nothing about the platform, customer data or a subscription. The privacy policy is written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and business contacts. Neither says whether customer content flowing through discovery scans, red teaming or the AI inventory may be used to train or improve models, and no subscription terms, master agreement, data processing agreement or security page is published.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific period is published for the end of the relationship, and the customer cannot change it. Section 6.6 of the Terms of Use sets a sixty day window after termination or expiry for export using standard features, after which Credo AI may delete User Data except as required by law or for its legitimate business purposes, and it recommends regular backups by the customer. Two limits apply. Retention during the term is a standard, not a period: User Data is kept as long as needed to provide the services and meet legal, dispute and enforcement needs, so how long a GAIA prompt or generated governance artifact persists while the subscription runs is not stated.
No zero retention or customer configurable window is offered. Section 6.7 separately permits indefinite use of aggregated and anonymized derivatives.
The privacy policy's retention language concerns personal data the company holds as controller, kept for as long as reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose collected for and longer where a complaint or the prospect of litigation exists. For discovery scan results across cloud and code repositories, model artifacts, agent traces, red teaming transcripts and the documents a scan reaches, no deletion commitment, export window, retention period during the term or zero retention option is published, and no data processing agreement is published.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Separation between users, teams or customers is undescribed. Section 3.3 of the Terms of Use puts administrative users in charge of access levels and permissions for their organization, which is a customer control over its own people, not a statement about how the platform keeps one organization's governance records apart from another's, or whether a business user registering an AI system can see assessments from a different part of the enterprise.
The product page describes connecting every stakeholder to every AI system, which is the opposite emphasis. Nothing describes tenancy, isolation or permission enforcement at retrieval time, including for GAIA's evidence retrieval across a customer's records.
The platform page describes role based documentation, ownership tracking and responsibility assignment for organizing a customer's own governance records. Nothing describes how one customer's AI inventory, scan results and red teaming transcripts are separated from another's: no tenancy, isolation or permission enforcement at retrieval time, including for the Guardian Agents that observe production behavior. No security page, trust center or data processing agreement is published.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The agreement commits to prior written notice where legally permitted, with minimization. Section 11.6 of the Terms of Use allows disclosure of confidential information required by law, regulation or court order only if the receiving party gives prior written notice so the other party may seek a protective order or other remedy, and discloses only the portion legally required. If no protective order is obtained, it must furnish only what is legally required and use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain confidential treatment.
Section 11.3 makes User Content the customer's confidential information, so the clause reaches the governance records and assessments a customer holds in the platform, not just account data. No transparency report, request statistics or law enforcement guidelines page is published.
The privacy policy states that Holistic AI may share personal data at any time if required for legal reasons or in order to enforce its terms or the policy, and that data may be transferred, sold or assigned to a third party in a sale of the business. Neither statement carries any commitment or reservation about notifying the affected party, seeking a protective order, narrowing the disclosure to what is legally required, or challenging a request.
No customer agreement with a confidentiality clause is published, and the policy concerns personal data rather than customer content in the platform.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The sources behind the compliance content are named, and no license or rights basis is stated for any of them. The compliance and policy engine ships policy packs for the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, SOC 2, OMB M-25, Colorado's automated decision rules and the NAIC AI bulletin, and the AIUC-1 agent standard joined in September 2026. The governance knowledge graph links regulations, risks, controls and business context into a proprietary intelligence layer.
ISO 42001 and the SOC 2 trust services criteria are copyrighted works rather than public law, and no license basis is given for them. No update schedule is given for the packs as regulations change.
Systems are assessed against the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, New York City Local Law 144 and custom frameworks, with a controls and risk library and a governance ontology built on the vendor's published research into bias, robustness, privacy and transparency. No license or rights basis is stated for the standards content, and ISO 42001 is a copyrighted standard, not public law. No update cadence is stated for the framework packs as instruments change, while the EU framework has been amended and its high risk timetable moved, and nothing says how a customer learns that an assessment was completed against a superseded version.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Currency of the authority behind the policy packs and control library has no stated check. The usual subject, subsequent history of reported cases, does not apply to a platform whose outputs are risk classifications and control mappings rather than citations to case law. The equivalent here is whether the policy packs and control library track amendments to the instruments they encode, and nothing commits to it. Credo AI publishes regulatory intelligence and an explainer on changes to the EU framework, which shows the content is maintained, but nothing says how a customer learns that a pack has changed, when it was last aligned, or what happens to an assessment completed under a superseded version.
The platform's outputs are inventories, risk classifications and control mappings rather than citations to case law. Nothing published commits the framework assessments to tracking amendments to the instruments they encode. The platform promises real time alignment and continuous monitoring in a feature strip, without stating what is monitored, how a customer is told that a framework mapping has changed, or when each pack was last aligned.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Credo AI describes oversight rather than uncertainty. Human oversight is kept for critical decisions, workflows carry approval gates, high risk actions escalate to a person, and Agent Governor can block or escalate a coding agent's action before it runs. Those are controls over what an agent may finish, not a description of what GAIA does when the evidence it needs is missing or ambiguous. No confidence or grounding signal, abstention path for GAIA's evidence retrieval or risk assessment, or evaluation in which the system declined is published, for agents that draft governance plans and remediate incidents.
The platform detects hallucination and uncertainty in a customer's AI systems. On the vendor's side, Sentinel agents observe and alert without interfering, and Operative agents act once a risk threshold is crossed. Nothing states what happens between those two positions, whether a confidence or coverage score is exposed for a discovery scan or a risk classification, or whether the system has an explicit unknown state, and the actions downstream include kill switches and deployment blocks.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database and general sanctions coverage record no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Credo AI or GAIA; the decisions naming specific tools name general purpose chatbots and legal research products. Credo AI's outputs are internal governance artifacts rather than filings, though they are designed to be shown to regulators and auditors.
The AI Hallucination Cases database kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming Holistic AI or its Guardian Agents. The platform's outputs are inventories and governance artifacts rather than filings, though its bias audit artifacts are designed to be filed with or shown to regulators.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
A lawyer relying on the platform's output gets no engagement with bar or ethics guidance. Credo AI engages regulation heavily and specifically, publishing policy packs, a regulatory insights hub, an explainer on changes to the EU AI framework and an annual trust summit, and it names legal and compliance as a stakeholder group in the platform. All of that concerns the obligations of the organizations that buy the product.
Nothing names an ethics opinion, bar association guidance or a regulator's guidance on lawyers' use of AI, and nothing addresses the duties of a lawyer relying on a governance artifact the platform generated.
Holistic AI engages regulation in detail, including the statutory bias audit obligation under New York City Local Law 144, and its homepage names legal among the audiences for its compliance evidence; all of that concerns the obligations of the organizations that buy the product and of their AI systems. The platform page, homepage, website terms and privacy policy name no ethics opinion, bar association guidance or regulator's guidance on lawyers' use of AI, and do not address the duties of a lawyer relying on an artifact the platform generated.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. An enterprise licenses Credo AI to govern its own AI systems, and the stakeholders named in the platform (governance leads, business users, engineering, legal and compliance, and information security) are internal functions that bill no client for the work. The efficiency claims on the product page, ten times faster compliance and seventy percent less time in engineering bottlenecks, are aimed at the buyer's own cost and cycle time.
Advisory services are sold alongside the platform, but they are Credo AI's own consulting work rather than a matter between lawyer and client, so there is no client invoice to address.
Holistic AI is licensed by an enterprise to govern its own AI estate, and the users the vendor names, the governance lead, risk and compliance, engineers, business owners and information security, are internal functions that bill no client for the work. The return on investment and savings reporting on the platform page are the buyer's own cost measures. No fee terms of any kind are published, since no customer agreement is published.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Section 6.4 of the Terms of Use says that where a customer is subject to data protection laws requiring one, Credo AI will sign its standard data processing agreement on request, so that document is not public. Credo AI names no subprocessors and no model provider behind its own governance agents, so a client asking whose models see its content gets no published answer. What can be forwarded is narrower but real: the no training commitment at 6.8, the named list of enterprise AI tools staff may use with confinement and deletion conditions, the sixty day retention position and the breach notice commitment. Credo AI's trust center is a portal on Vanta.
No subprocessor list, data processing agreement or statement that one is available on request is published, and no model provider is named for the vendor's own Guardian Agents. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI appear on the platform page as part of the customer's own AI estate. The only document a buyer could forward is a privacy policy written from the controller side about website and contact data, and no trust center or security page is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Court disclosure of the agents' own work has no supporting record or certification. The platform generates plenty of evidence, including automated evidence generation, audit trails, audit ready documentation and conformity artifacts. But that evidence records what the customer's AI systems are and how they were governed, for regulators and auditors, not what Credo AI's own governance agents did to produce a given output.
Nothing offers an export for each item showing which model or agent produced an assessment, what it retrieved and what a person verified, and nothing addresses a court's standing order on AI use or a disclosure a filer could attach.
The platform generates audit documentation, regulatory reports, evidence collection, full audit trails and version history, which record what the customer's AI systems are and how they were governed, for regulators and auditors. Nothing records what Holistic AI's own agents did to produce a given finding: no export for each item covering which agent produced an assessment, what it examined and what a person verified, and nothing addresses a court's standing order on AI use.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Deployment Model and Data Residency
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
- Court Disclosure Support
Product updates
The latest logged changes from each vendor, newest first, each linked to its source.
Credo AI
-
Regulatory / guideline
Credo AI added the AIUC-1 AI agent standard to its AI Governance Platform, mapping AIUC-1 requirements to the specific agents they apply to.
Source
In summary
Credo AI
Credo AI, a Los Altos, California company, sells an AI governance platform. It registers an organization's models and agents, discovers shadow AI, and scores and red teams risk. It maps controls to the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001 and SOC 2, and monitors agents in production. Its GAIA agents draft governance plans and run remediation with approval gates. According to the AI Legal Index, Credo AI's published terms bar model training on customer data and back the service with an intellectual property indemnity and a liability cap of twelve months' fees. It states a SOC 2 Type II examination.
Holistic AI
Holistic AI, from Holistic AI Limited of London, sells an AI governance platform in three modules. Identify discovers models, agents and pipelines through read only connectors. Protect tests them for bias, robustness and privacy, and red teams language models and agents. Enforce turns policy into workflows with approvals, kill switches and framework assessments against the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001 and New York City Local Law 144. According to the AI Legal Index, Holistic AI publishes what its agents may do alone: Sentinel agents observe and alert, and Operative agents act inline only once a risk threshold the customer sets is crossed.
Questions buyers ask
Credo AI vs Holistic AI: which AI governance platform is better?
Credo AI publishes more on paper: its terms of use, with a training bar, an export window and a liability cap, and named customers including Mastercard and Principal. Holistic AI publishes a detailed account of what its monitoring and intervention agents may do. Buyers who need contract terms early have more to read from Credo AI. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What are Holistic AI's Sentinel and Operative agents?
They are the two modes of its Guardian Agents. Sentinel agents monitor production AI for prompt injection, jailbreaks, data leakage, hallucination, toxicity and bias, and alert without interfering. Operative agents act only when a risk threshold is crossed, controlling tools, access, spend and agent identity, with kill switches and deployment blocks. Customers configure the thresholds. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Credo AI or Holistic AI train on customer data?
Credo AI's terms of use state that it will not use customer data to train, develop or improve any AI model, and name the enterprise AI tools its own staff may use under confinement and deletion conditions. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Holistic AI run New York City bias audits?
Holistic AI lists New York City Local Law 144 among the frameworks it assesses systems against and sells bias testing, including counterfactual testing. Local Law 144 requires an independent auditor, and nothing Holistic AI publishes states where its tool ends and an auditor's attestation begins. Credo AI's published policy packs do not list Local Law 144. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Three things to weigh. Holistic AI publishes no customer agreement, data processing agreement or trust center, though an agreement provided in a sales process may cover that ground. Credo AI's terms grant a broad license over customer content for providing and improving its services, beside its training bar. Holistic AI tests other systems for hallucination and publishes no accuracy measure for its own discovery. Neither vendor reviewed this page.