APort vs Galileo Agent Control
Evaluation finds issues after runs. OAP blocks unauthorized tool calls before they execute—use both for defense in depth.
Galileo’s Agent Control category (and similar observability platforms) excels at tracing, scoring, and improving agent quality over time, with integrations from major agent vendors.
OAP does not replace test harnesses; it enforces authorization at execution time so high-risk calls never leave the platform without a policy decision.
| Comparison point | OAP / APort | Galileo (Agent Control) |
|---|---|---|
| Time axis | Synchronous pre-action gate on every tool call. | Continuous evaluation, monitoring, and iteration on trajectories. |
| Failure mode | Hard deny with coded reasons when policy fails closed. | Alerts, dashboards, and workflow to remediate model behavior. |
| Policy surface | Passport capabilities + policy pack JSON + limits. | Configurable monitors, scorers, and organizational policies. |
| Proof for compliance | Signed OAP decision per attempt. | Telemetry and eval artifacts; format varies by deployment. |
| Best together | Use OAP for enforcement, Galileo for regression testing and drift detection. | Use Galileo to prioritize which policies to tighten in OAP. |
Use Galileo (Agent Control) when
- You need rich analytics on agent traces and quality metrics
- You run red-team suites against agents in CI
- You want vendor dashboards for model + tool behavior
Use OAP / APort when
- You must stop disallowed transfers, shell, or MCP calls in production
- Auditors ask for per-action authorization records
- You need deterministic deny semantics under prompt injection
Why teams choose OAP / APort
Enforcement, not only measurement
OAP stops calls; eval platforms prioritize detection and improvement loops.
Works offline
Local passport evaluation for dev laptops without shipping traces to a SaaS.
Open decision contract
OAP decision schema is public; easier to embed in your own audit store.