Why Bridgekeeper
Modern gateways already do detection-style guardrails — Bifrost in particular ships a real security layer, much of it by integrating external providers, which means prompts leave your boundary. Bridgekeeper wins on two axes those tools don't own: architectural containment and data sovereignty.
LiteLLM, Ollama, and Bifrost are excellent at what they do. Here's the layer none of them give you by themselves.
| Capability | LiteLLM | Ollama | Bifrost | Bridgekeeper |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routing & gateway | ● | ● | ● | — |
| Detection-style guardrailsBifrost ships a real security layer; much of it integrates external providers, so prompts leave your boundary. | ◐ | — | ↗ | ● |
| Provenance tracking | — | — | — | ● |
| Tool / function-call authorization | — | — | — | ● |
| Outbound / exfiltration controls | — | — | ◐ | ● |
| Replay resistance | — | — | — | ● |
| Untrusted-content isolation | — | — | — | ● |
| Works fully air-gapped (no prompts to a third party) | ◐ | ● | — | ● |
● full · ◐ partial · ↗ via external provider (prompts leave your boundary) · — not provided. Bridgekeeper runs with your gateway; it does not replace it.