Alma vs Push Security
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings
At a glance
| Dimension | Alma | Push Security |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Freemium (free for up to 3 users; paid self-hosted tiers) | Freemium (free tier available; paid starts at $20/user/mo estimated) |
| 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, vendor-neutral AI agent governance with passive discovery, policy enforcement, and cryptographic audit.
Visit Website
What 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
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
36 mentions across 3 sources · 30% positive — critical
Hacker News, YouTube, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Deploys as extension across all major browsers, avoiding enterprise lock-in
- • Autonomous hunting agents detect and block zero-day threats in real time
- • Addresses emerging AiTM phishing, ClickFix, and session hijacking attacks
- • Provides shadow AI discovery and governance, a growing need
What frustrates them
- • Limited independent reviews and community deployment case studies
- • Extension-based agent may impact browser performance on low-end devices
- • Pricing for advanced features likely steep for SMBs
- • Configuration complexity requires skilled security engineers
Researched Aug 18, 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
Push Security and Looker address entirely different domains — browser security vs. business intelligence — so the choice depends on your primary need. If your priority is stopping browser-based attack
Buyers should not choose between Push Security and Amplitude — they serve entirely different needs. Push Security is for security teams defending against browser-based attacks and securing AI usage. A
If your priority is securing browser-based attacks and shadow AI usage, choose Push Security — it directly addresses AiTM phishing, AI tool data leakage, and ghost logins across all browsers. If you n
Push Security and Power BI serve fundamentally different needs: Push Security is a browser security platform for stopping AI-powered attacks and controlling AI tool usage, while Power BI is a business
Choose Datadog if you need deep, unified observability across infrastructure, apps, and security for DevOps/SRE teams. Choose Push Security if your priority is stopping browser-based attacks (AiTM phi
Push Security and Tableau serve fundamentally different purposes, so the choice depends entirely on your need: browser security and AI governance (Push Security) vs. data visualization and analytics (
Explore each tool further
Browse these categories
One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.
Last reviewed: July 3, 2026