---
title: "Foundation Models Vendor Governance | EFROS"
description: "Foundation Models vendors scored against US AI governance frameworks — sector-weighted composite, source-cited per cell, ungated and updated quarterly."
canonical: https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-sector/foundation/
---

- [Home](https://efros.com/)
- /[Research](https://efros.com/research/)
- /[US AI Vendor Governance Index](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/)
- /Foundation Models

By Sector / Foundation Models

# Foundation Model Governance

General-purpose LLM platforms scored against cross-cutting US AI governance frameworks. Foundation models score lower than sector-vertical vendors because sector-specific obligations (Section 1557, SR 11-7, ABA Op 512) are downstream deployer responsibilities, scored N/A here.

Edition: 2026-Q2 Vendors: 5 Sector-weighted composite

By [Stefan Efros](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanefros-cyberdefense/), CEO & Founder, EFROS

Updated · July 25, 2026

## Why this sector view

Foundation model selection is the most cross-cutting AI decision US enterprises make — the choice cascades through every downstream productivity, vertical, and custom application. The composite uses baseline (unamplified) weights since foundation models are general-purpose; the sector-specific scoring axes are scored N/A and excluded from the composite denominator.

## Primary frameworks anchored
- →NIST AI RMF 1.0 + GAI Profile (NIST AI 600-1)
- →Colorado SB 26-189 (amended AI law)
- →NYC Local Law 144, CA AB 2013, IL HB 3773, TN ELVIS Act, UT SB 149
- →EO 14110 + OMB M-24-10 (federal procurement)
- →ISO/IEC 42001 (international AI MS)

| # | Vendor | Score | Grade | BAA | Opt-out | US Res | SOC 2 | ISO 42001 | NIST AI | CO AI | §1557 | SR 11-7 | ABA 512 | Subproc | TC |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Anthropic Claude | 58 | C | Partial | Yes | Partial | Yes | No | Partial | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes | 4/5 |
| 2 | Google Gemini for Workspace | 58 | C | Partial | Partial | Yes | Yes | No | Partial | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes | 4/5 |
| 3 | OpenAI ChatGPT & API | 53 | D | Partial | Partial | Partial | Yes | No | Partial | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes | 4/5 |
| 4 | Meta Llama | 25 | F | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | No | 2/5 |
| 5 | Perplexity AI | 19 | F | No | Partial | No | Partial | No | No | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | Partial | 2/5 |

## Buyer's guide for this sector

For foundation model selection, the highest-leverage scoring axes are BAA tier coverage (enterprise vs consumer gap is the #1 shadow-AI source), training opt-out default, US data residency configuration, and trust-center maturity. Sector overlays are deployer responsibility, but the foundation vendor's posture on cross-cutting axes determines how much governance work the deploying organization inherits.

Operationalize the scoring

### NIST AI RMF Implementation Guide

The Index tells you which vendors clear the bar. The companion resource tells you how to turn that selection into a deployable governance program with documented evidence.

[NIST AI RMF Implementation Guide →](https://efros.com/resources/nist-ai-rmf-implementation-guide/)

## Compare Foundation Models with other sector and state views

Other sector views

[Healthcare AI](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-sector/healthcare/) [Legal AI](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-sector/legal/) [Enterprise Productivity AI](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-sector/productivity/) [Banking & Financial Services AI](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-sector/banking/)

State views

[california →](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-state/california/) [colorado →](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-state/colorado/) [new york →](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-state/new-york/) [illinois →](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-state/illinois/) [texas →](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/by-state/texas/)

Scoring as of 2026-05-13 from public information (vendor trust portals, BAAs, SOC report cover pages, model cards, vendor documentation). Posture changes frequently — re-verify with the vendor's trust center before contract. Methodology: [read the full methodology](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/methodology/).

## Turn the scoring into a deployable program

The Index tells you the posture. These engagements turn the posture into operational evidence.

[Reserve $5K AI Governance Audit](https://efros.com/contact/?source=ai-vendor-index-foundation) [Run AI Risk Score →](https://efros.com/tools/ai-risk-score/?source=ai-vendor-index-foundation) [See full Index →](https://efros.com/research/us-ai-vendor-governance-index/)