Amplitude vs Push Security
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings
At a glance
| Dimension | Amplitude | Push Security |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Product analytics, experimentation & feature flags (product/growth) | Browser-based phishing defense + shadow AI control (security) |
| Primary buyer | Product, growth, data, and marketing teams | Security and identity teams |
| Pricing model | Freemium; every plan includes full platform and unlimited seats, paid tiers are event-based | Freemium; cited at $5/user/month for mid-market teams under 500 seats |
| Delivery | Web/mobile SDK instrumentation; no per-seat cost; SSO and RBAC on paid tiers | Lightweight browser extension across popular browsers; no endpoint agent, no browser migration |
| Flagship capability | Global Agent natural-language queries, Agent Analytics, MCP server for Claude/Cursor | Real-time blocking of AiTM, ClickFix, device code, and consent phishing; shadow AI inventory |
| Notable integrations | Slack, Notion, GitHub, Cursor, Claude, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf, Replit, Codex, Gemini, Figma | Okta, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365/Teams, Sentinel, Datadog, Splunk, SentinelOne, Slack, REST API |

Amplitude is a product analytics platform with an MCP server, Global Agent, and Agent Analytics that let AI query your product data where
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: Amplitude 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.
Amplitude
116 mentions across 7 sources · 26% positive — critical (averaged across 7 sources)
Hacker News, YouTube, Product Hunt, Bluesky, Stack Overflow, GitHub, Lemmy
What users praise
- • AI Agents for 24/7 issue detection and optimization
- • MCP integration with Cursor, Claude, and other AI coding tools
- • AI Feedback extracts qualitative sentiment and actions
- • Session replay tied to event-based analysis
What frustrates them
- • Pricing jumps from $15 free to thousands—hard for small teams
- • Tracks clicks well but lacks depth for conversational AI analytics
- • Community feedback is extremely sparse and unreliable
- • Name confusion with AmplitudeJS and audio amplitude
Researched Jul 26, 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
Feature-by-feature
The feature sets share almost no vocabulary. Push Security lives in the browser: behavioral phishing detection, AiTM reverse-proxy detection, cloned login and Browser-in-the-Browser detection, ClickFix clipboard-injection blocking, device code phishing blocking, consent phishing and malicious OAuth integration detection, malicious browser extension detection with risk scoring and allowlisting, and ghost login detection for SSO bypass. Its AI side is defensive — prompt and data-input monitoring with clipboard blocking, AI file upload monitoring, AI OAuth/agent permission review, detection of agentic browsers like Comet, Atlas, and Dia, plus shadow AI app discovery and policy enforcement.
Amplitude's features are measurement and experimentation: behavioral cohorts, funnels, and conversion drivers; Session Replay with event and network context; Heatmaps and Zoning Insights; Feature Experimentation (A/B/n tied to flags), Web Experimentation, and Feature Management with unlimited flags and flag-level access control; Action Guides and Surveys; Marketing Analytics.
Its AI layer queries product data rather than blocking attacks — Global Agent for natural-language questions, Agent Analytics for measuring how AI agent experiences affect retention and revenue, and an MCP server that puts Amplitude insights inside Claude, Cursor, and other editors. Its integrations run to Slack, Notion, GitHub, Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot, Windsurf, Replit, Codex, Gemini, and Figma; Push's run to Okta, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365/Teams, Sentinel, Datadog, Splunk, SentinelOne, and Slack. One tool inspects the login; the other inspects the funnel.
Pricing compared
Both are freemium, but they meter completely different things. Push Security is per-user: the stated fit is mid-market security teams under 500 seats needing phishing defense at a predictable $5/user/month. That means cost scales with headcount, so a 400-person company can model it roughly as seat count times the per-user rate, and the browser-extension deployment means no enterprise browser license or endpoint agent to budget for separately.
Amplitude charges by events, not seats — every plan includes the full platform and unlimited seats, which is a different purchasing conversation entirely. The stated risk in the data is that free-tier teams hit event-based Growth or Enterprise pricing once they outgrow Free. So the two budgets do not compete for the same line item: Push sits in the security tool budget alongside Okta and your email gateway; Amplitude sits in the product/growth tool budget. The realistic caveat for each is the same shape — free tiers get you started, the paid jump is where the decision is made — but there is no scenario where a buyer swaps one of these for the other to save money. They are bought by different departments for different jobs.
Who should pick which
- Security team seeing AiTM or ClickFix phishing slip past email and SWG controlsPick: Push Security
Its core coverage is exactly those browser-level techniques: AiTM reverse-proxy detection, ClickFix clipboard-injection blocking, device code phishing, and cloned-login/BitB detection, delivered in the browser where the gateway never sees it.
- Identity team hunting ghost logins and password fallback paths that bypass SSOPick: Push Security
Ghost login detection for SSO bypass and password fallback, plus consent phishing and malicious OAuth integration detection, target the identity gaps an Okta deployment alone leaves open.
- Product team that needs to know where users get stuck and whether a change fixed itPick: Amplitude
Funnels, conversion drivers, Session Replay, and Feature/Web Experimentation tied to flags is the full measure-then-test loop; recent releases add experiment stop scheduling and cookie consent management for Web Experiment.
- Team shipping an AI agent that must prove retention and revenue impactPick: Amplitude
Agent Analytics is purpose-built for measuring AI agent experiences, and Global Agent plus the consolidated MCP tools let engineers query those insights from inside Claude, Cursor, or Discord.
- Company that must inventory shadow AI apps and control prompts, clipboard use, and LLM file uploadsPick: Push Security
Shadow AI app discovery, AI usage policy enforcement, prompt and data-input monitoring with clipboard blocking, and AI file upload monitoring with OAuth/agent permission review are its explicit AI-governance surface.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I replace one of these with the other?
No. Push Security blocks browser-based attacks and governs AI usage in the browser; Amplitude measures product behavior and runs experiments. Nothing in either feature list covers the other's job.
Do both require heavy setup?
Push is a browser extension across popular browsers with no endpoint agent and no enterprise browser migration. Amplitude requires event instrumentation, and its own stated downside is that for pre-seed teams with no instrumentation budget the setup time exceeds the value.
Push Security says it detects agentic browsers — does that mean it monitors AI agents the way Amplitude's Agent Analytics does?
No, and the direction is opposite. Push detects agentic browsers (Comet, Atlas, Dia) as a security signal and reviews AI OAuth/agent permissions. Amplitude's Agent Analytics measures how your own AI agent experiences affect retention and revenue.
Which one has per-seat pricing?
Push Security. Its stated mid-market fit is $5/user/month under 500 seats. Amplitude is event-based and every plan includes unlimited seats, so its cost does not track headcount.
What does Amplitude's MCP server do that Push's REST API doesn't?
They serve different consumers. Push's REST API feeds security telemetry into tools like Splunk, Datadog, and Sentinel. Amplitude's MCP server lets Claude, Cursor, and other MCP clients query product insights directly, now via consolidated Platform endpoints.
If I only have budget for one, how do I decide?
Decide by threat, not by tool comparison. If phishing, SSO bypass, or ungoverned AI usage is your exposure, buy Push. If you cannot tell why users churn or whether your last release helped, buy Amplitude.
More Amplitude or Push Security comparisons
These are not competitors — don't frame this as a pick-one decision. Spider Cloud is infrastructure you buy to get live web pages into an agent or retrieval pipeline; Amplitude is the analytics layer
These aren't competitors — the honest answer is that no buyer weighs one against the other. If you have a screenplay draft and want objective structural and market notes before a rewrite or a shopping
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
Explore each tool further
Browse these categories
One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.
Last reviewed: September 26, 2026