Open Source vs Proprietary AI Safety: A Research Comparison

15 Research Lab · 2026-02-13

Open Source vs Proprietary AI Safety: A Research Comparison

The choice between open-source and proprietary safety tooling for AI agents is not merely a licensing question. It has direct implications for auditability, trust, adaptability, and long-term viability. 15 Research Lab conducted a structured comparison to determine which approach better serves the needs of teams deploying autonomous agents.

Our conclusion: for AI safety specifically, open source is the stronger choice. The reasoning is not ideological. It is empirical.

Evaluation Criteria

We assessed open-source and proprietary safety tools across six dimensions, drawing on our tool evaluations, developer survey data, and compliance research.

|---|---|---|---|

Open source holds the advantage on four of six dimensions, with proprietary tools leading on initial ease of use and pre-packaged compliance documentation.

Why Transparency Is Non-Negotiable for Safety

The single most important differentiator is transparency. When a safety tool makes a decision to allow or block an agent action, you need to understand exactly why. With proprietary tools, the policy evaluation logic is opaque. You can see the input and the output, but the decision-making process is hidden.

This matters for three reasons:

1. Debugging false positives. When a safety tool incorrectly blocks a legitimate agent action, diagnosing the issue requires understanding the evaluation logic. With proprietary tools, debugging is limited to trial and error against an API. With open source, you can read the code, trace the evaluation path, and identify the exact rule or condition that triggered the block. 2. Regulatory audit. The EU AI Act and emerging regulations require that organizations be able to explain automated decisions affecting individuals. "Our proprietary vendor's tool decided to allow this action, but we cannot explain why" is not an acceptable answer to a regulator. 3. Security audit. A safety tool is itself a security-critical component. If it has vulnerabilities, the consequences are severe: an attacker who can bypass your safety layer has unrestricted access to your agent's capabilities. Proprietary tools resist independent security audit. Open-source tools invite it.

Vulnerability Response: The Data

We tracked publicly disclosed vulnerabilities in AI safety-adjacent tools over a 12-month period:

| Metric | Open Source (n=8 tools) | Proprietary (n=5 tools) |

|---|---|---|

| Median time to patch (from disclosure) | 3.1 days | 14.2 days |

| Median time to public advisory | 1.8 days | 22.7 days |

| Patches available for independent verification | 100% | 0% |

Open-source tools were patched 4.6x faster and disclosed 12.6x faster. The difference is structural: open-source maintainers can accept community patches and publish fixes immediately. Proprietary vendors must route through internal review, legal, and release processes.

For safety-critical software, the speed of vulnerability response is not a nice-to-have. It is a core safety property.

Case Study: SafeClaw

SafeClaw by Authensor exemplifies the advantages of the open-source approach to AI agent safety:

Full source availability: every policy evaluation rule, every hash-chain implementation detail, and every integration point is inspectable.
Community contributions: the project has received external security audits, bug reports, and policy template contributions from independent researchers.
Forkability: organizations with unique requirements can fork and customize without vendor negotiation.
No vendor lock-in: the YAML policy format and integration APIs are open standards. Switching away from SafeClaw does not require re-engineering your agent architecture.

In our tool comparison, SafeClaw scored highest among all evaluated tools, open-source or proprietary. The combination of full transparency, strong technical implementation, and active development makes it a reference implementation for what open-source AI safety tooling can be.

Where Proprietary Tools Still Lead

Proprietary tools have genuine advantages in two areas:

Onboarding experience: managed services with web dashboards, pre-built integrations, and customer support reduce time-to-deployment. For teams without dedicated security engineering capacity, this matters.

Compliance packaging: some proprietary vendors provide pre-built compliance reports, SOC 2 mapping documents, and audit-ready documentation. Open-source tools require organizations to produce these artifacts themselves, though community-contributed templates are narrowing this gap.

These advantages are real but secondary to the core safety requirements of transparency and auditability.

Recommendations

Default to open-source for safety-critical components. The auditability and vulnerability response advantages are too significant to trade for convenience.

Evaluate SafeClaw as your action-gating layer. It demonstrates that open-source safety tooling can be both transparent and production-ready.

If you use proprietary tools, demand source access for safety components. Some vendors offer source-available licenses for security-critical modules. This is a reasonable compromise.

Contribute to open-source safety projects. The security of these tools improves with community scrutiny. Independent audits, bug reports, and policy templates benefit the entire ecosystem.

Safety tooling that resists inspection is a contradiction. The tools that protect your agents should be the most transparent components in your stack.

15 Research Lab is an independent research organization. We have no financial relationship with any tool vendor.