When VPN and Zero Trust Network Access fits
- You need to control which AI services employees can access at the network level, blocking unsanctioned providers entirely.
- Your security architecture requires all traffic to route through a corporate egress point for visibility and logging.
- You need to enforce identity and device posture requirements before any AI service can be reached.
When Locke fits
- You have already decided which AI tools are approved and want to control what data goes into prompts on those tools.
- You want to govern what sensitive content reaches approved tools, not block them.
- You need on-device control that operates at the content level, not the connection level.
Side-by-side
| Dimension | Locke | VPN and Zero Trust |
|---|---|---|
| What it controls | What specific data fields appear in prompts (field-level content control). | Which services can be reached (connection-level access control). |
| Where it operates | At the device, inside the browser, at the moment of prompt composition. | At the network layer, between the device and the destination. |
| Can it prevent PHI from reaching an approved AI tool? | Yes. Masks or removes sensitive data before submission. | No. Only controls whether the connection is allowed, not the content. |
| Covers unsanctioned browser-based AI tools | Yes. Same controls on any AI chat interface regardless of policy status. | Can block access entirely; cannot inspect the content of allowed tools. |
| Best for | Controlling what sensitive data reaches approved AI services. | Controlling which AI services employees can access at all. |
Bottom line
VPN and Zero Trust control access to AI services. Locke controls the content that reaches them. Most organisations serious about AI risk end up wanting both: ZTNA to approve the tools, and Locke so even approved tools never see the most sensitive fields.
Related comparisons
- Locke vs Cloud-Based Data Loss Prevention
- Locke vs Enterprise Privacy Platforms
- Locke vs AI API Gateways and Proxies
