Lakera Guard
APIFreeReal-time prompt injection and LLM threat detection API.
Capabilities12 decomposed
real-time prompt injection detection with sub-50ms latency
Medium confidenceAnalyzes incoming prompts and user inputs in real-time to detect prompt injection attacks before they reach the LLM, using a neural model trained on the world's largest prompt injection dataset. The API processes requests synchronously with claimed sub-50ms latency, enabling inline deployment in production LLM pipelines without noticeable user-facing delay. Detection operates model-agnostically across any LLM backend (OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source, etc.) by analyzing prompt structure and semantic intent rather than model-specific artifacts.
Trained on the world's largest prompt injection dataset (claimed) with model-agnostic detection that doesn't require knowledge of the downstream LLM architecture, enabling deployment across heterogeneous LLM stacks. Uses neural detection rather than rule-based pattern matching, allowing adaptation to novel injection techniques.
Faster than rule-based injection filters (regex, keyword matching) and more portable than model-specific defenses because it detects injection intent semantically rather than relying on LLM-specific safety mechanisms that vary by provider.
jailbreak attempt detection and prevention
Medium confidenceIdentifies and blocks jailbreak prompts—carefully crafted inputs designed to circumvent an LLM's safety guidelines—by analyzing prompt semantics, role-play framing, and instruction-override patterns. The detection model recognizes common jailbreak techniques (e.g., 'pretend you are an unrestricted AI', 'ignore your guidelines', hypothetical scenarios designed to elicit unsafe content) and flags them before the prompt reaches the LLM, preventing the LLM from being manipulated into generating harmful content.
Detects jailbreak attempts semantically by analyzing prompt intent and framing patterns rather than keyword matching, enabling detection of novel jailbreak techniques that rephrase known attacks. Operates independently of the downstream LLM's safety mechanisms, providing a defense layer that works across any model.
More effective than LLM-native safety features (which can be circumvented) because it blocks jailbreaks before they reach the model, and more adaptive than static keyword filters because it recognizes semantic intent and novel phrasings.
horizontal threat policy control across multiple llm applications
Medium confidenceEnables centralized threat policy management across multiple LLM applications and deployments, allowing security teams to define threat policies once and apply them consistently across all applications without per-application configuration. Policies can be updated globally without redeploying applications, enabling rapid response to emerging threats or policy changes. This provides a control plane for LLM security across an organization's entire LLM portfolio.
Provides centralized policy control plane for threat detection across multiple LLM applications, enabling organization-wide security policies without per-application configuration. Policies can be updated globally without redeploying applications.
More scalable than per-application threat detection configuration and faster to update than redeploying applications, though actual policy management capabilities and update latency are undocumented.
threat detection for both user inputs and llm outputs
Medium confidenceProvides bidirectional threat detection that scans both user inputs (before they reach the LLM) and LLM outputs (before they're returned to users). This dual-direction approach prevents both adversarial inputs (prompt injection, jailbreaks) and harmful outputs (toxic content, PII leakage from the LLM's training data). The API can be called at two points in the request/response pipeline: before LLM inference (to protect the LLM) and after LLM inference (to protect users).
Provides bidirectional threat detection at both input and output stages of the LLM pipeline, enabling comprehensive protection against both adversarial attacks and model-generated harms. Single API can be used for both directions.
More comprehensive than input-only detection (which misses harmful outputs) and more practical than output-only detection (which can't prevent adversarial attacks), though requires two API calls per request.
toxic content detection and filtering
Medium confidenceAnalyzes user inputs and LLM outputs for toxic, abusive, hateful, or otherwise harmful language across 100+ languages. The detection model identifies profanity, slurs, harassment, threats, and other content that violates community standards or platform policies. Operates in real-time with sub-50ms latency, allowing toxic content to be flagged, filtered, or logged before it reaches users or is stored in application logs.
Supports detection across 100+ languages with a single API call, using a multilingual neural model rather than language-specific classifiers. Operates on both user inputs and LLM outputs, providing bidirectional content filtering.
Broader language coverage than most open-source toxicity classifiers (which typically support 5-20 languages) and faster than human moderation queues, though less contextually nuanced than trained human moderators.
personally identifiable information (pii) leakage detection
Medium confidenceDetects and flags the presence of sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) in user inputs and LLM outputs, including email addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, social security numbers, names, addresses, and other regulated data. The detection model uses pattern matching and semantic analysis to identify PII across multiple formats and languages, enabling applications to prevent accidental exposure of sensitive data in logs, outputs, or external integrations.
Operates bidirectionally on both user inputs and LLM outputs, detecting PII leakage in both directions. Uses pattern matching combined with semantic analysis to identify PII across multiple formats and languages without requiring explicit data masking rules.
More comprehensive than regex-based PII detection (which misses context-dependent cases) and faster than manual compliance audits, though less accurate than human review for ambiguous cases.
model-agnostic threat detection across heterogeneous llm backends
Medium confidenceProvides unified threat detection (prompt injection, jailbreaks, toxic content, PII) that works identically across any LLM backend—OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source models, custom fine-tuned models, or multi-model ensembles. The detection operates at the input/output level rather than relying on model-specific safety mechanisms, enabling consistent security posture regardless of which LLM provider or version is used. This allows teams to switch LLM providers or use multiple models in parallel without reconfiguring security policies.
Detects threats at the semantic/intent level rather than relying on model-specific artifacts, enabling a single detection pipeline to work across OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source, and custom LLMs without modification. Provides abstraction layer that decouples security policy from LLM provider choice.
More portable than model-specific safety mechanisms (which require reconfiguration per provider) and more flexible than LLM-native guardrails (which vary by model), enabling true provider independence.
synchronous api-based threat detection with inline integration
Medium confidenceProvides threat detection via a synchronous REST API that integrates directly into request/response pipelines, enabling inline security checks without asynchronous processing or external queues. The API accepts a prompt or text input and returns threat detection results (injection, jailbreak, toxic, PII flags) within sub-50ms, allowing the application to make immediate allow/block decisions before passing data to the LLM or returning it to users. Integration is straightforward: call the API before LLM inference or after LLM output generation, and handle the response synchronously.
Designed for inline integration into synchronous request/response pipelines with sub-50ms latency, enabling threat detection without asynchronous processing, queuing, or external state management. API-first architecture allows integration into any application stack without SDKs or language-specific bindings.
Simpler integration than async threat detection systems (no queues, callbacks, or state management) and faster than batch processing, though less efficient for high-throughput scenarios where batching would reduce overhead.
multilingual threat detection across 100+ languages
Medium confidenceDetects prompt injection, jailbreaks, toxic content, and PII across 100+ languages using a single unified model rather than language-specific classifiers. The detection model is trained on multilingual data and can identify threats in any supported language without requiring language detection or separate language-specific pipelines. This enables global applications to apply consistent security policies across all user languages without managing multiple detection models or language-specific rules.
Uses a single unified multilingual model for threat detection across 100+ languages rather than maintaining separate language-specific classifiers, reducing operational complexity and ensuring consistent threat definitions across languages. Automatically handles language detection without explicit configuration.
More scalable than language-specific detection pipelines (which require managing N models for N languages) and simpler than language detection + routing architectures, though potentially less accurate than specialized language-specific models.
production-scale threat detection with claimed 0.01% false positive rate
Medium confidenceDesigned for production deployment in high-volume LLM applications with claimed 0.01% false positive rate, meaning only 1 in 10,000 benign inputs are incorrectly flagged as threats. The detection model is optimized for precision (minimizing false positives that block legitimate users) while maintaining recall (catching actual threats). The API claims to 'scale effortlessly from zero to hundreds of prompts per second', suggesting horizontal scalability and load balancing for production traffic.
Optimized for production precision with claimed 0.01% false positive rate, enabling deployment in user-facing applications without blocking legitimate users. Designed to scale horizontally to handle hundreds of requests per second without degradation.
Higher precision than overly-aggressive threat detection systems (which block too many legitimate inputs) and more scalable than single-instance detection services, though actual false positive rate and scalability limits are unverified.
context-aware threat detection with risk quantification
Medium confidenceDetects threats with contextual awareness by analyzing not just the presence of suspicious patterns but the intent and context in which they appear. The detection model returns risk scores (numeric confidence levels) rather than binary flags, enabling applications to implement graduated responses (warn user, require confirmation, block) based on threat severity. This allows legitimate use cases (e.g., discussing security vulnerabilities, creative writing with mature themes) to proceed with warnings rather than being blocked outright.
Returns risk scores rather than binary flags, enabling context-aware threat assessment that distinguishes between actual threats and legitimate use cases containing suspicious patterns. Allows applications to implement graduated responses based on threat severity rather than hard blocks.
More nuanced than binary threat detection (which blocks all suspicious patterns) and more flexible than rule-based systems (which can't adapt to context), though requires application-level logic to interpret and act on risk scores.
real-time threat adaptation without manual model updates
Medium confidenceClaims to adapt threat detection in real-time to emerging attack patterns without requiring manual model retraining or deployment of new model versions. The detection system observes new threat patterns in production traffic and incorporates them into detection logic automatically, enabling the system to defend against zero-day prompt injection techniques and novel jailbreak methods as they emerge. This contrasts with static models that require periodic retraining and deployment cycles.
Claims automatic real-time adaptation to emerging threat patterns without manual model retraining, enabling defense against zero-day attacks and novel techniques. Contrasts with static models that require periodic update cycles.
Faster threat response than manual retraining cycles and more adaptive than static models, though actual adaptation mechanism, latency, and safeguards are undocumented and unverified.
Capabilities are decomposed by AI analysis. Each maps to specific user intents and improves with match feedback.
Related Artifactssharing capabilities
Artifacts that share capabilities with Lakera Guard, ranked by overlap. Discovered automatically through the match graph.
Lakera
AI's ultimate shield: real-time threat detection, privacy,...
Prompt Security
Safeguard GenAI applications with real-time, tailored security...
LLM Guard
Open-source LLM input/output security scanner toolkit.
Rebuff
Self-hardening prompt injection detector with multi-layer defense.
OpenAI: gpt-oss-safeguard-20b
gpt-oss-safeguard-20b is a safety reasoning model from OpenAI built upon gpt-oss-20b. This open-weight, 21B-parameter Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model offers lower latency for safety tasks like content classification, LLM filtering, and trust...
Best For
- ✓Teams building production LLM applications with user-facing input
- ✓Security-conscious organizations deploying chatbots or AI agents in regulated industries
- ✓Developers integrating LLM APIs into existing applications where latency is critical
- ✓Public-facing chatbot applications where adversarial users actively attempt jailbreaks
- ✓Organizations with strict content policies (financial services, healthcare, government)
- ✓Teams deploying open-source LLMs that lack robust built-in safety mechanisms
- ✓Organizations with multiple LLM applications that need consistent security policies
- ✓Enterprise teams managing LLM security across multiple teams or business units
Known Limitations
- ⚠Sub-50ms latency claim not independently verified; actual performance depends on payload size and network conditions
- ⚠No documented false negative rate (missed injection attacks); only claims 0.01% false positive rate
- ⚠Detection quality depends on training data coverage; novel injection techniques not in training set may evade detection
- ⚠No information on how detection adapts to different prompt formats (structured JSON, markdown, code blocks, etc.)
- ⚠Jailbreak detection is adversarial; sophisticated new techniques may not be detected until training data is updated
- ⚠No documented update frequency for jailbreak pattern detection; unclear how quickly new techniques are incorporated
Requirements
Input / Output
UnfragileRank
UnfragileRank is computed from adoption signals, documentation quality, ecosystem connectivity, match graph feedback, and freshness. No artifact can pay for a higher rank.
About
Real-time API that detects and prevents prompt injection, jailbreaks, toxic content, and PII leakage in LLM applications. Trained on the world's largest prompt injection dataset with sub-millisecond latency for production deployment.
Categories
Alternatives to Lakera Guard
AWS AI coding assistant — code generation, AWS expertise, security scanning, code transformation agent.
Compare →Are you the builder of Lakera Guard?
Claim this artifact to get a verified badge, access match analytics, see which intents users search for, and manage your listing.
Get the weekly brief
New tools, rising stars, and what's actually worth your time. No spam.
Data Sources
Looking for something else?
Search →