Alma vs Push Security
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings
At a glance
| Dimension | Alma | Push Security |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment model | Self-hosted open-core binary (no phone-home) | Cloud-based browser extension |
| Primary focus | AI agent governance, least-privilege enforcement, audit trails | Browser-based attacks (AiTM, ClickFix, session hijack) + AI tool DLP |
| Policy engine | Cedar-based RBAC/ABAC, deny-closed default, hash-chained ledger | Real-time controls (blocks, guardrails) via browser telemetry |
| Target persona | Platform/DevOps engineers, security architects | Security teams, identity teams |
| Latest news highlights | 2026-06-30: v0.1.0-alpha.1 pre-release; access map; kill switch; FinOps | 2026: poisoned tenant attack lessons; agentic threat hunting pipeline |
Choose Push Security if your primary threat is browser-based attacks (AiTM, ClickFix, session hijacking) and you need to control AI tool data leakage across any browser without migration. Choose Alma if you're a DevOps or security team governing AI agents (Claude Code, MCP servers) in a self-hosted environment and require least-privilege enforcement with an immutable audit trail. They are complementary: Push protects the user endpoint; Alma protects the agent infrastructure.
Self-hosted AI agent governance with an access map, Cedar policy enforcement and signed audit evidence.
Visit Website
Push Security is browser security for the AI era — it stops AiTM phishing, ClickFix attacks, session hijacking and shadow AI inside the
Visit WebsiteWhat real users say: Alma vs Push Security
Not marketing copy and not our opinion — a structured sweep of public discussion (reviews, forums, communities and video comments), showing what people praise and what they complain about for each tool.
Alma
69 mentions across 4 sources · 30% positive — critical (averaged across 4 sources)
Hacker News, Product Hunt, App Store, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Deny-closed default with Cedar-based RBAC/ABAC is security-best-practice approach.
- • Passive discovery of agents and MCP servers without proxies or agents.
- • Tamper-evident audit ledger with cryptographic chaining ensures compliance readiness.
- • Emergency kill switch for instant session revocation adds critical safety.
What frustrates them
- • No community feedback available to validate actual usability or stability.
- • Feature claims are extensive but unverified in real-world deployments.
- • AGPL license with 3-user cap may complicate evaluation and adoption.
- • Documentation and onboarding experience cannot be assessed from data.
Researched Jul 3, 2026
Push Security
30 mentions across 3 sources · 51% positive — mixed (weighted across 3 sources)
Hacker News, YouTube, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Browser-extension delivery means no endpoint agent and no forced enterprise-browser migration
- • Cross-browser coverage including Chromebooks and AI/enterprise browsers
- • Published $5/user/month Standard pricing with self-serve trial lowers evaluation friction
- • Detections target modern browser-layer threats: AiTM, ClickFix, BitB, device-code phishing
What frustrates them
- • Essentially no independent user reviews anywhere in the scraped community data
- • Extension-based security is itself a supply-chain risk that HN commenters flag
- • Clipboard, prompt and file-upload monitoring raises privacy and data-residency objections
- • Autonomous agent deployment of blocks may conflict with change-control processes
Researched Oct 14, 2026
Who should pick which
- Security team facing browser-based attacksPick: Push Security
Push detects and blocks AiTM, ClickFix, session hijacking, and malicious OAuth – the top browser threats – without changing browsers.
- Platform team governing AI agents (Claude Code, MCP)Pick: Alma
Alma provides passive discovery, least-privilege access maps, and kill switch for AI agents on self-hosted infrastructure.
- CISO needing AI tool DLP for employeesPick: Push Security
Push offers in-browser DLP for AI tools (clipboard, file upload) and real-time AI usage control – critical for data leakage prevention.
- DevOps team with air-gapped environmentPick: Alma
Alma is self-hosted, no phone-home, supports air-gap – ideal for strict data residency or compliance.
- Identity team hardening unmanaged loginsPick: Push Security
Push provides in-browser MFA registration guardrails and detects ghost logins/shadow SaaS – directly addresses identity attack surface.
Frequently Asked Questions
Alma vs Push Security: which should you choose?
Choose Push Security if your primary threat is browser-based attacks (AiTM, ClickFix, session hijacking) and you need to control AI tool data leakage across any browser without migration. Choose Alma if you're a DevOps or security team governing AI agents (Claude Code, MCP servers) in a self-hosted environment and require least-privilege enforcement with an immutable audit trail. They are complementary: Push protects the user endpoint; Alma protects the agent infrastructure.
Are Push and Alma competing or complementary?
Complementary. Push protects the browser endpoint (attacks, AI data loss); Alma governs AI agents on infrastructure. They can work together.
Does Alma require a cloud connection?
No. Alma is self-hosted, offline-capable with Ed25519 license verification – no phone-home.
Can Push Security work with any browser?
Yes, Push deploys as a browser extension across major browsers – no forced migration to a single enterprise browser.
What is Alma's latest release?
Alma released v0.1.0-alpha.1 on 2026-06-30 with core governance, access map, kill switch, FinOps, Claude Code/MCP support.
Does Push Security detect AI agent usage?
Yes, Push provides real-time AI tool visibility and in-browser DLP (clipboard, file uploads) for AI tools like ChatGPT.
Does Alma support identity federation?
Yes, via SAML 2.0 and OIDC with scoped delegation.
Which tool is better for compliance?
Both: Push helps with AI regulation compliance (US/EU/UK); Alma provides an append-only audit ledger with hash chaining for SOC 2/ISO 27001.
Can I use both tools together?
Yes, they cover different layers – browser (Push) and agent infrastructure (Alma) – and can be deployed simultaneously.
More Alma or Push Security comparisons
These are not competitors, and you should not shortlist them against each other. Push Security answers a security question — how do you stop browser-based phishing (AiTM, ClickFix, device code, consen
These two don't compete for the same budget, so there's no either/or decision here. Buy Push Security if you're a security or identity team watching AiTM phishing, ClickFix, device-code phishing, and
These two are not competitors and shouldn't be evaluated head-to-head — they solve different problems for different budget owners. If your problem is browser-borne attacks (AiTM reverse proxies, Click
These are not substitutes — they're different layers of a security/ops stack. Buy Datadog if your problem is observability, cloud posture, or AI-workload monitoring across multi-cloud infrastructure;
These are not competitors, so there is no 'either/or' decision here — shortlisting both in one evaluation would be a category mistake. If your problem is browser-delivered credential theft, AiTM rever
There is no buying decision here. Push Security protects browsers from AiTM, ClickFix, device code and consent phishing and gives security teams visibility into shadow AI usage at roughly $5/user/mont
Explore each tool further
Browse these categories
One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.
Last reviewed: July 3, 2026