An off-device alternative to Seraphic.

Seraphic and Legba address browser risk. Their security boundaries differ materially. Seraphic controls browser runtime behavior locally. Legba can move selected execution away.

Seraphic serves managed enterprise workforces. Its policies cover browser activity and data. Legba serves personal Chrome workflows. It lacks enterprise administration.

That difference should lead the evaluation. Runtime enforcement favors Seraphic. Selected off-device execution favors Legba. Feature totals come later.

Existing Seraphic estates already own policies. Their teams understand the operating model. Removing those controls can increase risk. Seraphic usually wins there.

Seraphic adds security inside enterprise browsers. Its agent operates near JavaScript execution. It abstracts browser engine behavior. Policies can govern runtime activity.

Seraphic also provides data controls. It monitors browser extension activity. It applies access policies. It supports browser session auditing.

The product supports multiple enterprise browsers. Organizations can keep existing browser choices. This differs from replacing browsers entirely. It also differs from remote isolation.

Seraphic explicitly compares itself against RBI. Its page argues for local enforcement. Buyers should treat that as vendor positioning. Architecture facts remain independently useful.

CrowdStrike completed the acquisition during February 2026. Seraphic now sits within CrowdStrike. That ownership is current factual context. It does not prove future packaging.

Buyers should confirm today's commercial terms. Product integration can change over time. Public documentation may update accordingly. Avoid relying on old assumptions.

Existing CrowdStrike customers may gain alignment. Procurement relationships can reduce organizational effort. That advantage depends on actual contracts. It should not be presumed.

Legba remains a separate focused product. It offers no CrowdStrike platform integration. Enterprise buyers needing that alignment should favor Seraphic.

Legba offers two Chrome extension modes. Ghost gives Chrome a private route. Shield opens pages off your device. Users choose the needed mode.

Shield changes selected execution location. Seraphic keeps execution inside local browsers. That architectural split defines this comparison. Both approaches can reduce different risks.

Legba does not provide runtime governance. It lacks enterprise DLP. It lacks centralized session auditing. It does not monitor workforce extensions.

Those limits preserve honest scope. Legba fits personal isolation workflows. Seraphic fits managed browser security. Each should be evaluated accordingly.

Security labels can collapse different controls. This worksheet follows execution and enforcement. It also records governance and ownership. Those distinctions expose practical fit.

The matrix does not force symmetry. Seraphic owns broader enterprise controls. Legba owns a smaller isolation workflow. Each advantage follows its architecture.

Seraphic works across enterprise browser choices. Organizations avoid replacing existing browsers. Its agent supplies a common security layer. That helps mixed browser fleets.

Broad support still needs verification. Browser versions change frequently. Extensions can conflict. Critical applications need direct testing.

Legba targets Chrome and Chromium. That narrow scope simplifies personal installation. It also excludes other browser requirements. Mixed fleets usually favor Seraphic.

Deployment burden also differs. Seraphic needs managed rollout and policy. Legba needs individual extension installation. Scale determines which burden matters.

Seraphic governs activity inside browser sessions. It provides data controls and access policies. It also supports extension monitoring. These jobs require centralized administration.

Browser session auditing adds enterprise visibility. That evidence can support investigations. It can also support policy review. Personal tools rarely provide equivalent context.

Legba lacks those enterprise layers. It does not replace DLP. It does not provide runtime audit. It does not manage workforce extensions.

Enterprise buyers should not discard required controls. Personal buyers should not inherit unused administration. The smallest sufficient system reduces regret. The worksheet keeps requirements visible.

Seraphic protects activity during local execution. Its agent operates within browser runtime. That model can preserve native browser behavior. It also keeps code local.

Shield opens selected pages away from endpoints. That changes the exposure boundary. It does not add Seraphic's policies. Remote isolation and runtime security remain distinct.

Seraphic publishes an RBI comparison page. The page favors its own architecture. Buyers should separate architecture from persuasion. Both models deserve direct testing.

Avoid universal security promises. Each boundary leaves operational limits. A local agent needs ongoing management. Remote execution needs compatibility validation.

Seraphic uses a sales-led demo process. Exact public dollar pricing remains unavailable. CrowdStrike ownership adds current procurement context. Packaging should be confirmed directly.

Legba publishes extension pricing publicly. A public trial supports direct testing. This reduces starting effort. It does not create enterprise capability parity.

Total cost includes operating labor. Seraphic needs deployment and policy ownership. Legba needs extension support. Different scopes create different cost structures.

Do not predict future CrowdStrike packaging. Use today's official documents. Request current commercial terms. Compare matching user and support assumptions.

A strong pilot compares security boundaries. It does not reward feature volume. Test Seraphic's local controls. Test Legba's remote isolation separately.

Include sensitive browser workflows. Include required extensions and scripts. Include unmanaged device access. Include selected isolated sessions.

Score mandatory outcomes before preferences. A missing control should stop migration. A compatibility failure should also stop migration. Keep reasons beside every score.

Preserve existing defenses during testing. Make the pilot reversible. Include administrators and daily users. Choose only after required outcomes pass.

Seraphic is the stronger runtime platform. It governs workforce browser behavior. It offers data and access controls. It supports broader browser fleets.

Legba is the smaller isolation option. It serves personal Chrome workflows. Shield moves selected execution away. Ghost supplies a private route.

Choose Seraphic for runtime enforcement. Choose Seraphic for enterprise DLP. Choose Seraphic for cross-browser coverage. Those are meaningful wins.

Evaluate Legba for personal off-device isolation. Keep expectations within its scope. The better security boundary follows the need.