| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Scans user-provided prompts for common personally identifiable information patterns (names, email addresses, phone numbers, financial account numbers, medical record identifiers) using regex or NLP-based pattern matching, then replaces detected values with anonymized tokens (e.g., [NAME_1], [EMAIL_1]) before transmission to ChatGPT. The system maintains a local mapping table to enable optional de-anonymization of responses post-retrieval, though this mapping is not persisted across sessions by default.
Unique: Implements client-side pattern-based PII detection with local token mapping rather than relying on server-side redaction, allowing users to maintain control over sensitive data without transmitting raw PII to any external system. The masking occurs in the browser before ChatGPT API calls, creating a privacy boundary at the point of transmission.
vs alternatives: Simpler and faster than manual redaction workflows, but weaker than cryptographic encryption or differential privacy approaches because masking is deterministic and reversible, making it vulnerable to inference attacks if the token mapping is exposed.
Provides a streamlined UI that accepts raw prompts, automatically detects and masks PII in a single action, and forwards the sanitized prompt to ChatGPT without requiring users to manually identify or redact sensitive fields. The workflow includes optional review/edit steps where users can verify masked content before submission, reducing friction compared to manual copy-paste redaction.
Unique: Reduces privacy-conscious prompt submission to a single-click action with optional review, eliminating the cognitive load of manual redaction. The design prioritizes accessibility over technical depth, making privacy protection available to non-technical users without requiring regex knowledge or data classification expertise.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than manual redaction or DIY regex-based masking scripts, but less robust than enterprise data loss prevention (DLP) tools because it lacks machine learning-based context understanding and has no organizational policy enforcement.
Maintains an in-memory mapping table during a browser session that tracks the relationship between original PII values and their anonymized tokens (e.g., {[NAME_1]: 'John Smith', [EMAIL_1]: 'john@example.com'}). After receiving ChatGPT's response, users can optionally trigger de-anonymization to replace tokens back with original values, restoring readability without re-exposing data to OpenAI. The mapping is not persisted across sessions or backed up, requiring users to maintain their own records if long-term reference is needed.
Unique: Implements client-side, session-scoped token mapping that allows users to maintain a local reference to original values without persisting sensitive data to any server. This design trades durability for privacy — the mapping exists only in browser memory and is automatically discarded on session end, preventing long-term data leakage through stored mappings.
vs alternatives: More privacy-preserving than server-side mapping storage (which could be breached or subpoenaed), but less convenient than persistent de-anonymization because users must manually manage the mapping across sessions or lose the ability to reverse-substitute.
Offers core anonymization functionality at no cost and without requiring user registration, login, or API key management. The tool operates entirely client-side in the browser, eliminating the need for backend infrastructure to track users or store session data. This design removes financial and authentication barriers to privacy-conscious AI usage, though it also means no user-specific features, history, or cross-device synchronization.
Unique: Eliminates authentication and backend infrastructure entirely, operating as a pure client-side tool that requires no account creation, login, or data transmission to MaskMyPrompt servers. This design choice prioritizes user privacy and accessibility over feature richness and personalization, making privacy protection available to anyone with a browser.
vs alternatives: More accessible than enterprise DLP tools or privacy-as-a-service platforms that require registration and backend processing, but less feature-rich because it cannot offer history, cross-device sync, or advanced ML-based detection without server-side infrastructure.
Executes all PII detection, masking, and token mapping logic entirely within the user's browser using JavaScript, ensuring that raw prompts and sensitive data never leave the client device before anonymization. The tool does not transmit prompts, mappings, or metadata to MaskMyPrompt servers — only the anonymized prompt is sent to ChatGPT's API. This architecture eliminates MaskMyPrompt as a potential data intermediary, though it also means no server-side logging, analytics, or advanced ML models.
Unique: Implements a zero-trust architecture where all sensitive data processing occurs in the browser, eliminating MaskMyPrompt as a data intermediary entirely. Raw prompts and PII never leave the client device, reducing the attack surface and removing the need for users to trust MaskMyPrompt's data handling practices.
vs alternatives: More privacy-preserving than cloud-based privacy services that process data on servers, but less capable because it cannot leverage server-side ML models, centralized threat intelligence, or advanced detection algorithms that require computational resources beyond browser capabilities.
Replaces detected PII values with deterministic, human-readable tokens that follow a consistent naming scheme (e.g., [NAME_1], [EMAIL_1], [PHONE_1]) based on the type and order of detection. The same PII value always maps to the same token within a session, enabling consistent reference in multi-turn conversations and allowing users to manually track which token corresponds to which data type. However, the deterministic nature makes the masking structure obvious and potentially vulnerable to inference attacks if an attacker knows the token naming convention.
Unique: Uses deterministic, type-labeled tokens ([NAME_1], [EMAIL_1]) instead of random hashes or UUIDs, making the masking structure transparent and human-readable. This design prioritizes usability and consistency over cryptographic security, allowing users to manually verify masking and maintain context across multi-turn conversations.
vs alternatives: More transparent and user-friendly than opaque hashing or random token generation, but less secure because the deterministic structure and type labels reveal information about the masked data and make inference attacks easier.
Automatically loads and parses documents from diverse sources (PDFs, Word docs, HTML, Markdown, code files, databases) into a unified in-memory representation using format-specific loaders and node-based document abstractions. Each document is decomposed into Document objects containing metadata, content, and relationships, enabling downstream processing without format-specific handling in application code.
Unique: Provides a unified loader abstraction (BaseReader interface) that normalizes 100+ data source connectors into a single Document/Node API, eliminating format-specific branching logic in application code. Loaders are composable and chainable, allowing sequential transformations (e.g., load → split → extract metadata → embed).
vs alternatives: Broader out-of-the-box loader coverage than LangChain's document loaders and more structured node-based decomposition than raw text splitting, reducing boilerplate for multi-source RAG pipelines.
Splits documents into semantically coherent chunks using multiple strategies (character-based, token-aware, recursive, semantic) with configurable overlap and chunk size. Preserves document hierarchy and metadata through a node tree structure, enabling retrieval systems to maintain context relationships and enable hierarchical re-ranking or parent-document retrieval patterns.
Unique: Implements a node-tree abstraction that preserves document hierarchy and enables parent-document retrieval patterns. Supports multiple splitting strategies (recursive, semantic, code-aware) with pluggable custom splitters, and automatically propagates metadata through the node tree.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than LangChain's text splitters because it preserves hierarchical relationships and supports semantic splitting; better for complex document structures than simple character-based splitting.
LlamaIndex scores higher at 40/100 vs MaskmyPrompt at 38/100. However, MaskmyPrompt offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Processes documents containing mixed content (text, images, tables, code) by extracting and understanding each modality separately, then synthesizing information across modalities. Uses vision models for image understanding, specialized parsers for tables and code, and integrates results into a unified document representation for retrieval and generation.
Unique: Integrates vision models, table parsers, and code extractors into a unified multi-modal document processing pipeline that synthesizes information across modalities. Preserves modality-specific structure (table schemas, code formatting) while enabling cross-modal retrieval and generation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multi-modal support than text-only RAG; built-in vision integration reduces boilerplate for document understanding compared to manual vision API calls.
Enables streaming of LLM responses token-by-token and real-time retrieval updates, allowing applications to display partial results as they become available. Supports streaming from retrieval (progressive document discovery) and generation (token-by-token output) with backpressure handling and cancellation support for responsive user experiences.
Unique: Provides first-class streaming support for both retrieval and generation with automatic backpressure handling and cancellation. Enables progressive result display without custom async/streaming code in application layer.
vs alternatives: More integrated streaming support than manual LLM API streaming; built-in retrieval streaming and backpressure handling reduce complexity compared to custom streaming implementations.
Tracks API costs for LLM calls, embeddings, and other operations with per-query and per-session cost attribution. Provides cost optimization recommendations (e.g., batch processing, model selection, caching) and enables cost-aware query planning to balance quality and expense. Integrates with multiple LLM providers to normalize cost tracking across models.
Unique: Provides automatic cost tracking across multiple LLM providers with per-query attribution and cost optimization recommendations. Integrates with query execution to enable cost-aware planning without manual cost calculation.
vs alternatives: More integrated cost tracking than manual API billing review; built-in optimization recommendations reduce guesswork for cost reduction.
Enables building custom RAG pipelines by composing modular components (retrievers, synthesizers, agents, tools) through a declarative or programmatic API. Supports complex workflows with branching, loops, and conditional logic, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Pipelines are reusable, testable, and can be deployed as APIs or batch jobs.
Unique: Provides a flexible pipeline composition API supporting both declarative and programmatic definitions, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Enables complex workflows with branching and conditional logic without custom orchestration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible pipeline composition than fixed RAG architectures; better workflow support than manual component chaining.
Generates embeddings for documents/nodes using pluggable embedding providers (OpenAI, Hugging Face, local models) and stores them in a unified vector store interface that abstracts over multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus, FAISS, Chroma, etc.). The abstraction layer enables switching vector stores without changing application code, and handles batching, retry logic, and metadata indexing.
Unique: Provides a unified VectorStore interface that abstracts 10+ vector database backends, enabling zero-code switching between providers. Handles embedding batching, retry logic, and metadata propagation automatically. Supports both cloud and local embedding models through a pluggable EmbedModel interface.
vs alternatives: Broader vector store coverage and more seamless provider switching than LangChain's vectorstore integrations; better abstraction consistency across backends than using raw vector store SDKs directly.
Retrieves semantically similar documents from vector stores using embedding-based similarity search, with optional re-ranking, filtering, and fusion strategies (hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval). Supports multiple retrieval modes (similarity, MMR, fusion) and enables custom retrieval logic through a pluggable Retriever interface that can combine multiple strategies.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Retriever abstraction supporting multiple retrieval strategies (similarity, MMR, fusion, custom) that can be composed and chained. Built-in support for re-ranking via LLM or cross-encoder, and hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval without custom integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible retrieval composition than LangChain's retrievers; built-in re-ranking and fusion strategies reduce boilerplate for advanced retrieval pipelines.
+6 more capabilities