| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 8 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Detects 30+ PII entity types (names, SSNs, credit cards, phone numbers, bitcoin wallets, etc.) in unstructured text using a pluggable recognizer system that combines NLP-based entity extraction, regex pattern matching, and machine learning models. The Analyzer component orchestrates multiple recognizers in sequence, applies context enhancement to reduce false positives, and returns scored entity matches with confidence levels and character offsets for precise redaction.
Unique: Combines three orthogonal detection strategies (NLP entity extraction via spaCy, regex pattern matching, and pluggable ML recognizers) in a single pipeline with context-aware scoring that reduces false positives by analyzing surrounding text — unlike single-strategy tools, this multi-method approach catches PII that any single technique would miss
vs alternatives: More accurate than regex-only solutions (e.g., simple pattern matchers) because context enhancement disambiguates false positives, and more extensible than closed ML models because custom recognizers can be injected without retraining
Provides an extensible architecture for building custom PII recognizers by implementing a base Recognizer interface and registering them with the Analyzer. Developers can create domain-specific recognizers using regex patterns, spaCy NLP pipelines, external ML models, or API calls (e.g., calling a custom ML service to detect proprietary entity types). The framework handles recognizer composition, scoring aggregation, and context passing without requiring framework modifications.
Unique: Implements a true plugin architecture where custom recognizers are first-class citizens in the detection pipeline — recognizers can be added/removed at runtime without recompiling, and the framework handles orchestration, scoring, and context passing transparently. This differs from monolithic tools where custom logic requires forking or wrapping the entire system.
vs alternatives: More flexible than closed-source DLP tools because custom recognizers integrate seamlessly with built-in ones, and more maintainable than regex-only solutions because recognizers can encapsulate complex logic (ML models, API calls, stateful processing)
Defines a standardized entity type taxonomy (PERSON, EMAIL, PHONE_NUMBER, CREDIT_CARD, SSN, LOCATION, ORGANIZATION, etc.) that is language-agnostic and extensible. Built-in recognizers target these entity types, and custom recognizers can define new types (e.g., EMPLOYEE_ID, MEDICAL_RECORD_NUMBER). Entity types are used for operator mapping (e.g., 'PERSON -> redact'), confidence thresholding, and filtering. The system supports entity type hierarchies (e.g., PERSON is a subtype of IDENTITY).
Unique: Provides a standardized, language-agnostic entity type taxonomy (30+ built-in types) that is extensible for custom types, enabling consistent PII policies across organizations and languages. This decouples entity types from recognizers and operators, allowing independent evolution of each component.
vs alternatives: More standardized than ad-hoc entity naming because built-in types ensure consistency, and more extensible than fixed taxonomies because custom types can be added without framework modifications
Provides pre-built Docker images for Analyzer, Anonymizer, and Image Redactor components that can be deployed as microservices. Includes Docker Compose configurations for local development and Kubernetes manifests for production deployments. Supports scaling individual components independently, health checks, and integration with container orchestration platforms. Enables rapid deployment without manual Python environment setup.
Unique: Provides pre-built Docker images and Kubernetes manifests for Analyzer, Anonymizer, and Image Redactor that can be deployed as independent microservices with built-in health checks and scaling — rather than requiring manual Docker setup, it includes production-ready configurations for container orchestration.
vs alternatives: More operationally efficient than manual Python deployments because containers provide reproducible environments, and more scalable than monolithic deployments because each component can be independently scaled based on load.
Supports PII detection across multiple languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Chinese, Dutch, Greek, Italian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian) through pluggable spaCy language models. Allows users to specify language per analysis or auto-detect language. Supports custom NLP models by implementing a custom NLP engine interface. Enables language-specific context enhancement and recognizer rules.
Unique: Supports multiple languages through pluggable spaCy models and allows custom NLP engine implementations, enabling language-specific context enhancement and recognizer rules — rather than a single monolithic model, it uses language-specific models that can be swapped or customized per deployment.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed-language systems because custom NLP models can be integrated, and more accurate than language-agnostic detection because language-specific models understand linguistic nuances.
De-identifies detected PII entities using a pluggable operator framework that supports multiple anonymization strategies: replace (with fixed/random values), redact (mask with asterisks), hash (deterministic hashing for consistency), encrypt (reversible encryption with key management), mask (partial masking like XXX-XX-1234), and custom operators. The Anonymizer component applies operators to text based on entity type mappings, preserves non-PII content, and supports deanonymization for authorized users via encrypted operator state.
Unique: Supports both irreversible (redact, hash) and reversible (encrypt) anonymization in a unified framework, with operator composition per entity type — this allows fine-grained control (e.g., hash names but redact SSNs) and enables authorized deanonymization without re-processing. Most tools offer either redaction OR encryption, not both in a composable pipeline.
vs alternatives: More flexible than simple redaction tools because encrypt/hash operators enable analytics on anonymized data, and more practical than full encryption because selective operators preserve readability where privacy risk is low
Detects and redacts PII in image files (PNG, JPG) and medical DICOM images by extracting text via Optical Character Recognition (OCR), running the extracted text through the Analyzer to identify PII entities, and then redacting those regions in the original image using bounding boxes. The Image Redactor component handles image format conversion, OCR engine integration (Tesseract or cloud-based), and supports both text-based and visual redaction (blurring, pixelation) for DICOM images with medical-specific entity types.
Unique: Integrates OCR with the Analyzer pipeline to enable end-to-end image PII redaction, and includes specialized DICOM handling that preserves medical metadata while redacting patient identifiers — this is critical for healthcare because DICOM files contain structured metadata that must not be corrupted. Most image redaction tools are either generic (no DICOM support) or medical-specific (no general image support).
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than manual redaction because OCR + Analyzer catches PII automatically, and more privacy-preserving than simple blurring because it targets only detected PII regions rather than entire sections
Detects and anonymizes PII in structured datasets (CSV, JSON, Parquet, databases) by applying the Analyzer to column values, mapping detected entities to anonymization operators, and writing de-identified output in the same format. The Structured component handles schema inference, batch processing of large files, and supports both column-level (redact entire column) and cell-level (redact specific values) anonymization strategies. Integrates with PySpark for distributed processing of multi-gigabyte datasets.
Unique: Extends Presidio's text-based PII detection to structured data by applying the Analyzer to column values and supporting both column-level and cell-level anonymization strategies. Includes PySpark integration for distributed processing of large datasets without loading entire files into memory. Most tools handle either text OR structured data, not both in a unified framework.
vs alternatives: More flexible than SQL-based masking tools because it works with multiple file formats and supports custom recognizers, and more scalable than single-machine tools because PySpark enables processing of multi-terabyte datasets
+5 more capabilities
Evaluates LLM outputs against curated question sets spanning three distinct hazard domains (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical security) using domain-expert-validated benchmarks. The assessment framework maps model responses to risk levels within each domain, enabling quantitative measurement of dangerous capability presence. Responses are scored against rubrics developed by security domain experts to identify whether models can produce actionable harmful information.
Unique: Combines expert-validated questions across three distinct security domains (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical) into a unified benchmark framework, rather than treating each domain separately. Uses domain-expert rubrics for scoring rather than automated classifiers, ensuring nuanced assessment of harmful capability presence.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-domain safety benchmarks (e.g., ToxiGen for toxicity) because it measures dangerous knowledge across multiple hazard categories simultaneously, enabling holistic safety evaluation.
Provides standardized evaluation infrastructure to measure the effectiveness of unlearning techniques (methods that remove dangerous capabilities from trained models) by comparing model performance before and after unlearning interventions. The framework isolates the impact of unlearning by holding the benchmark constant while varying the model state, enabling quantitative assessment of whether dangerous knowledge has been successfully suppressed.
Unique: Provides a standardized evaluation harness specifically designed for unlearning research, with built-in comparison logic and side-effect detection. Unlike generic benchmarks, it explicitly measures delta between model states and flags unintended capability loss.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than ad-hoc unlearning evaluation because it enforces consistent benchmark administration, statistical testing, and side-effect measurement across all methods being compared.
WMDP scores higher at 63/100 vs Presidio at 56/100. Presidio leads on quality, while WMDP is stronger on ecosystem.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Implements a structured scoring framework where model responses to dangerous knowledge questions are evaluated against expert-developed rubrics that assess the degree of hazard (e.g., specificity, actionability, completeness of harmful information). Responses are scored on multi-point scales (typically 0-4 or 0-5) rather than binary pass/fail, capturing nuance in how dangerous a model's output actually is. Rubrics are domain-specific (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical) and developed by subject matter experts to ensure validity.
Unique: Uses domain-expert-developed multi-point rubrics rather than automated classifiers or binary labels, enabling nuanced assessment of dangerous knowledge severity. Rubrics are calibrated to distinguish between vague, incomplete, and highly actionable harmful information.
vs alternatives: More interpretable and defensible than black-box classifiers because rubric criteria are explicit and expert-validated; enables stakeholders to understand why a response received a particular score.
Analyzes patterns in how dangerous knowledge correlates across the three benchmark domains (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical security), identifying whether models that excel at suppressing one type of hazard tend to suppress others. The analysis uses statistical correlation and clustering techniques to reveal whether dangerous capabilities are independent or coupled in model behavior. This enables understanding of whether unlearning interventions have domain-specific or global effects.
Unique: Explicitly analyzes relationships between dangerous knowledge across domains rather than treating each domain independently. Enables discovery of whether hazards are coupled or independent in model behavior.
vs alternatives: Provides deeper insight than single-domain benchmarks by revealing how safety properties interact across different hazard categories, informing more effective unlearning strategies.
Manages the creation, validation, and versioning of benchmark questions and rubrics through a structured curation pipeline involving domain experts, adversarial testing, and iterative refinement. The pipeline ensures questions are sufficiently difficult to elicit dangerous knowledge without being unrealistic, and rubrics are calibrated through inter-rater agreement studies. Version control enables tracking of benchmark evolution and ensures reproducibility across research papers.
Unique: Implements a formal curation pipeline with expert validation and inter-rater agreement checks, rather than ad-hoc question collection. Versioning enables reproducible research and transparent tracking of benchmark evolution.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than informal benchmarks because it enforces expert review, inter-rater validation, and version control, reducing bias and enabling reproducible comparisons across papers.
Provides a unified interface for evaluating diverse LLM architectures (open-source models, API-based models, fine-tuned variants) by abstracting away implementation differences. The abstraction handles API calls (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.), local inference (Hugging Face, Ollama), and custom model serving, enabling consistent benchmark administration across heterogeneous model types. This enables fair comparison between models with different deployment modalities.
Unique: Abstracts away differences between API-based, local, and custom-deployed models through a unified interface, enabling fair comparison without reimplementing benchmark logic for each model type.
vs alternatives: More flexible than model-specific benchmarks because it supports any LLM architecture without code changes, reducing friction for researchers evaluating new models.
Implements rigorous statistical testing to determine whether differences in dangerous knowledge scores between models or unlearning methods are statistically significant or due to random variation. Uses techniques like bootstrap confidence intervals, permutation tests, and effect size estimation to quantify uncertainty in benchmark results. This prevents overconfident claims about safety improvements that may not be robust.
Unique: Integrates formal statistical testing into the benchmark evaluation pipeline rather than relying on point estimates, ensuring claims about safety improvements are statistically justified.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than informal comparisons because it quantifies uncertainty and prevents overconfident claims about safety improvements that may not be robust to sampling variation.
Employs adversarial testing techniques to validate that benchmark questions reliably elicit dangerous knowledge and cannot be easily circumvented by prompt engineering. Red-teamers attempt to find questions that fail to elicit dangerous knowledge or rubric edge cases, and the benchmark is iteratively refined based on findings. This ensures the benchmark is robust to adversarial adaptation and captures genuine dangerous capabilities rather than surface-level patterns.
Unique: Incorporates formal red-teaming into the benchmark validation pipeline rather than assuming questions are robust, ensuring the benchmark remains effective against adversarial adaptation.
vs alternatives: More robust than static benchmarks because it actively searches for evasion techniques and iteratively refines questions, reducing the risk that models can circumvent the benchmark through prompt engineering.