Alter vs Push Security

Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings

Analysis generated Live tool data as of 2026-10-30
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

Alter or Push Security: which should you choose?

DimensionAlterPush Security
PricingFreemiumFreemium
Primary FocusAuthorization layer for AI agentsBrowser security for AI-era attacks
Key DifferentiatorOAuth token management + audit trails for agentsBrowser telemetry + agentic threat hunting
Target UserDevelopers building AI agent systemsSecurity teams
Deployment TypeCloud-based proxy with SDKsCloud-based browser extension
Latest MilestoneLaunched Alter Vault (March 2025)Coined poisoned tenant attack; shared lessons learned (2026)

Push Security and Alter address different security gaps: Push protects end-users from browser-based attacks (AiTM, ClickFix, data leakage to AI tools) using browser telemetry and autonomous agents, while Alter secures AI agent-to-API integrations with OAuth management and audit trails. Choose Push if your priority is defending against identity threats and controlling AI tool usage in the browser; choose Alter if you're building multi-agent systems that need fine-grained API authorization and auditability. They are complementary, not competitive.

Alter
Alter

Privileged access management for AI agents — vault credentials, enforce per-call policy, and audit every API request.

Visit Website
Push Security
Push Security

Browser security extension that stops AiTM phishing and ClickFix and gives you shadow AI visibility

Visit Website
Pricing
Freemium
Paid
Plans
FreeFree
Starter$50/mo
Growth$250/mo
EnterpriseCustom
Standard$5/user/mo
EnterpriseCustom
Popularity
4 views
7.5k views
Skill Level
Intermediate
Advanced
API Available
Platforms
WebAPI
Web
Categories
🛡️ AI Governance & Guardrails🧠 Agent Memory & Runtimes
🚨 Threat Detection & SOC🔒 Security & Privacy
Features
Credential Vault storing OAuth tokens and managed API keys, injected per request
Default-deny policy engine with parameter-level controls
Per-agent identities and scopes traceable to a named end user
Human-in-the-loop approval for sensitive agent calls
Tamper-evident audit trail streamable to your SIEM
Embeddable Alter Connect widget for end-user OAuth consent
Wallet portal for end-user connection visibility and revocation
Python and TypeScript SDKs — one call handles storage, refresh, policy, audit
Proxy-side credential injection keeping tokens out of your process and logs
140-provider integration catalog
First-class LangChain, MCP, and AWS integrations
MCP server support exposing Alter-managed credentials as tools
Automatic OAuth token refresh
Fail-closed authorization — request denied if a policy cannot be evaluated
IdP webhook offboarding that cascades revocation across agent keys and grants
Real-time AiTM reverse-proxy phishing detection and blocking in the browser
Cloned login page, Browser-in-the-Browser (BitB) and Browser-in-the-Middle (BitM) detection
ClickFix clipboard injection blocking at the point of interaction
Device code phishing detection that catches token theft bypassing MFA and passkeys
ConsentFix and malicious OAuth consent monitoring, blocking and app removal
Session hijacking, credential attack and URL blocking with custom detection rules
Mail forwarding rule monitoring for Microsoft 365 and Google
Malicious browser extension detection, risk scoring, removal and default-deny allowlisting
Extension supply chain change monitoring for ownership transfers and permission escalations
Shadow AI app discovery and agentic browser detection for Comet, Atlas and Dia
AI prompt and data-input monitoring, AI clipboard monitoring and blocking, AI file upload monitoring
AI OAuth and agent permission monitoring plus AI usage policy enforcement
Autonomous threat hunting agents that write detection rules and deploy blocks
Configurable response modes per control: monitor, warn or block, with screenshot capture
Ghost login detection, non-SSO login visibility, MFA guardrails and shared account detection
Integrations
Google Calendar
GitHub
Slack
Salesforce
Notion
Linear
Stripe
Datadog
Zoom
HubSpot
Dropbox
Figma
Jira
GitLab
Auth0
Proofpoint
Okta
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Sentinel
Splunk
SentinelOne

Who should pick Alter, and who should pick Push Security?

  • Security team at a mid-size enterprise
    Pick: Push Security

    Push provides browser-based detection of AiTM phishing, session hijacking, and AI tool data leaks, directly addressing top identity threats without deploying an enterprise browser.

  • Developer building a multi-agent SaaS platform
    Pick: Alter

    Alter offers OAuth token management, identity-aware policies, and audit trails out-of-the-box, saving months of building custom auth infrastructure for agent-API interactions.

  • CISO concerned about shadow AI usage
    Pick: Push Security

    Push discovers ghost logins, shadow SaaS, and provides in-browser DLP for AI tools (clipboard, file uploads), giving visibility and control over unmanaged AI adoption.

  • Startup deploying an AI assistant with user OAuth
    Pick: Alter

    Alter's Connect widget and pre-built integrations simplify end-user OAuth consent flows, and task-scoped credentials ensure least privilege for each agent action.

  • Security operations team needing automated response
    Pick: Push Security

    Push's agentic threat hunting uses browser telemetry to autonomously write detection rules and deploy blocks, reducing manual toil and accelerating response to browser-based attacks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Alter vs Push Security: which should you choose?

Push Security and Alter address different security gaps: Push protects end-users from browser-based attacks (AiTM, ClickFix, data leakage to AI tools) using browser telemetry and autonomous agents, while Alter secures AI agent-to-API integrations with OAuth management and audit trails. Choose Push if your priority is defending against identity threats and controlling AI tool usage in the browser; choose Alter if you're building multi-agent systems that need fine-grained API authorization and auditability. They are complementary, not competitive.

Can Push Security and Alter be used together?

Yes, they address different layers: Push secures the browser (user side), while Alter secures API access (agent side). Using both provides end-to-end security for AI agent workflows.

Does Push Security require an enterprise browser?

No, it works as a browser extension across Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and others, avoiding forced migration to a single browser.

Does Alter support real-time API calls?

Alter adds ~100ms latency per request due to its proxy architecture, so it's not ideal for ultra-low-latency scenarios but fine for most agent workflows.

Which tool protects against AI prompt injection?

Push Security protects against data leakage to AI tools (clipboard, file uploads) but not prompt injection per se; Alter focuses on API authorization, not content filtering.

Do both tools offer free tiers?

Yes, both are freemium. Push's free tier likely includes basic detection; Alter's free tier likely includes limited API calls and integrations.

Which tool is better for compliance?

Push helps meet AI regulation requirements (US, EU, UK) by providing visibility into AI tool use. Alter provides audit trails with chain of custody for agent actions, useful for SOC 2, SOX.

Can Push detect OAuth phishing?

Yes, it detects malicious OAuth integration attempts and blocks them, a key feature highlighted in its capabilities.

Does Alter support MCP servers?

Yes, Alter supports MCP servers, AI agents, chatbots, and apps as part of its integration list.

What else are Alter and Push Security compared with?

Where can you read more about Alter and Push Security?

Browse these categories

Still deciding? Get the weekly AI tools brief

One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.

Analysis generated by our model pipeline from live data: