This is the closest comparison on the list, because both products look at AI inside engineering. The split is clean: one is built around spend and adoption, the other around control and evidence.
Faros AI pricing and capabilities were read from the vendor’s own pages in October 2026. Products change. If something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
We write this section first. A comparison that only lists wins is an advert, and it reads like one.
A free desktop build that keeps everything on your machine, and a free self-service preview. You can look before anyone calls you.
Tying AI spend to the results it produced is the question finance is actually asking this year.
Choosing a model per task using evaluations against your own code is a real engineering answer, not a vendor preference.
Usage policy as the rollout grows is the right shape for a company moving fast.
Each call writes a signed receipt and each entry chains to the previous one. The output is something an auditor reads, not a chart.
The policy compiles into each agent tool’s own enforcement format and blocks there, rather than reporting afterwards.
Trailers tie a diff to the run that produced it, so the chain runs from the prompt hash to the merged code.
Evidence is mapped to the frameworks an auditor names, and the AI bill of materials lists what is actually in use.
The same ten questions appear on every Fastpace comparison, so the pages can be read against each other. A tilde means partly, and it carries a note.
| Capability | Faros AI | Fastpace |
|---|---|---|
| Governs more than one AI coding tool | ✓ | ✓ |
| Enforces policy where the developer works† | ∼ | ✓ |
| Writes a signed receipt for each AI call | ✕ | ✓ |
| Records the model, endpoint and training opt-out per call† | ∼ | ✓ |
| Keeps a tamper-evident chain an auditor can verify | ✕ | ✓ |
| Ties a commit back to the run that produced it | ✕ | ✓ |
| Produces an AI bill of materials | ✕ | ✓ |
| Maps evidence to compliance frameworks | ✕ | ✓ |
| Finds AI use outside the governed tools† | ∼ | ✓ |
| Runs locally, with no prompt text leaving the machine† | ∼ | ✓ |
Faros AI is the better answer to a budget question. Fastpace is the better answer to an evidence question. Most companies get asked both, in that order.
No figures on the pricing page. A free desktop build and a free self-service preview, then a demo or sales contact.
Free tier: Free desktop version and a free self-service preview. · Checked October 2026.
Fastpace: Community is free. Team is $29 per editor seat per month billed annually, or $36 monthly, with the first five seats free for twelve months. Platform is $99 per editor seat per month billed annually. Enterprise is custom. Viewer seats for CISO and GRC are free on Team.
No tool does. Fastpace produces evidence and maps it to the controls a framework names. The judgment stays with your auditor, and Fastpace holds no certification on your behalf.
The policy compiler reports what each target can and cannot enforce. Some settings are protected by the operating system and some a determined developer can route around. We would rather print that than imply a guarantee.
We publish no customer logos we cannot name and no statistics we cannot source. Ask us for a pilot rather than a reference wall.
The CLI ships under the Elastic 2.0 licence. It runs locally in your repository, and we call that source-available because that is what it is.
It does not publish paid pricing. There is a free desktop version and a free self-service preview, and anything beyond that is a demo or a sales conversation. Checked October 2026.
Yes. They read overlapping signals and answer different questions. Nothing in either one prevents the other.
It records token counts per call when the runner exposes them, and aggregates spend. For deep spend analytics and model selection, Faros AI goes further.
The signed chain and the framework mapping, which is us. An auditor does not ask for a spend chart.