Atomic Agent vs Push Security

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

Analysis reviewed Live tool data as of 2026-10-18
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

At a glance

DimensionAtomic AgentPush Security
DeploymentLocal-first on macOS (terminal)Cloud-based browser extension
Target UserDevelopers & power usersSecurity teams (SOC, identity, risk)
Core ProblemPrivate, autonomous task automationBrowser-based attacks & AI tool risk
IntegrationsTelegram, Git, SQLite, shell, browserOkta, Azure AD, Google Workspace, Slack, Splunk
Latest News2026-07-01: Definition of a local AI agent published2026-06-26: Experienced a poisoned tenant attack; shares lessons

Choose Push Security if you’re a security team needing visibility into browser-based attacks and AI tool risks with out-of-the-box integrations. Choose Atomic Agent if you’re a developer wanting a private, local AI assistant with no cloud dependency. They address different problems—Push focuses on enterprise security, Atomic on personal automation.

Try Atomic AgentTry Push Security
Atomic Agent
Atomic Agent

Local-first AI agent that runs llama.cpp on your own GPU and drives your browser, files, shell and git with zero token bill.

Visit Website
Push Security
Push Security

Push Security is browser security for the AI era — it stops AiTM phishing, ClickFix attacks, session hijacking and shadow AI inside the

Visit Website
Pricing
Free
Freemium
Plans
$0/mo
$5/user/month
Custom
Popularity
6 views
7.5k views
Skill Level
Advanced
Advanced
API Available
Platforms
DesktopCLIAPI
Web
Categories
💾 Local & On-Device AI🛠️ Autonomous Coding Agents🖱️ Browser & Computer-Use Agents
🚨 Threat Detection & SOC🔒 Security & Privacy
Features
Local model inference via llama.cpp with no per-token bill
GBNF grammar-constrained decoding for structurally valid tool calls
Byte-stable prompt prefix with KV-cache reuse between steps
SQLite-backed memory and searchable notes with FTS recall injected in the tail
Browser automation for research, PDF reading and cited local notes
File sorting, renaming, grouping and dedup by reading file content
Shell and git tool access for repo triage and fix branches
Vision support for screenshots and image input
Cron, interval and webhook scheduling with Telegram output
MCP (Model Context Protocol) support for external tools
Dual-provider run mode: one model orchestrates, a second executes with multiple workers
Importers that carry skills, sessions and MCP servers from Pi, Oh-My-Pi, Hermes, OpenClaw and Claude Code
Parallel read-only tool batches with approval gates on shell, file writes and HTTP
Ink-based terminal UI plus desktop apps for Mac, Windows and Linux
CLI commands for run, serve, tui, task, trace, models and skill
Real-time AiTM reverse-proxy phishing detection and blocking in the browser
Cloned login page, Browser-in-the-Browser and Browser-in-the-Middle detection
ClickFix clipboard injection blocking at the point of interaction
Device code phishing detection that catches token theft bypassing MFA and passkeys
OAuth consent monitoring, consent blocking and app removal
Session hijacking and credential attack detection
Malicious browser extension detection, risk scoring 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 with AI clipboard monitoring and blocking
AI file upload monitoring plus AI OAuth and agent permission monitoring
AI usage policy enforcement that blocks unsanctioned tools
Autonomous threat hunting agents that write detection rules and deploy blocks
Configurable response modes per control: monitor, warn or block
Browser DLP with file download, upload and clipboard telemetry and blocking
Integrations
Telegram
Discord
GitHub
Composio
MCP servers
llama.cpp
OpenRouter
OpenAI-compatible APIs
Proofpoint
Okta
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Sentinel
Datadog
Splunk
SentinelOne
Slack

What real users say: Atomic Agent 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.

Atomic Agent

16 mentions across 2 sources · 35% positive — critical (averaged across 2 sources)

GitHub, Lemmy

What users praise

  • • Fully local – no cloud, no API keys, no token bills.
  • • Grammar-constrained decoding ensures valid tool calls from small models.
  • • Benchmarked +11.3% on GAIA Level 1 vs Hermes Agent.
  • • Supports scheduling, cron, and webhooks for automation.

What frustrates them

  • • Active development means frequent breaking changes.
  • • Steep learning curve – not for non-developers.
  • • Sparse documentation and community resources.
  • • Little community feedback available to troubleshoot.

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

  • SOC analyst
    Pick: Push Security

    Needs real-time detection of AiTM phishing and session hijacking, with integrations to Splunk and identity providers.

  • Developer wanting private automation
    Pick: Atomic Agent

    Wants to automate file management, repo tasks, and web scraping locally without cloud dependencies.

  • Identity security manager
    Pick: Push Security

    Needs to enforce MFA registration, discover ghost logins, and secure AI tool usage across browsers.

  • Privacy-conscious power user
    Pick: Atomic Agent

    Prefers all data on-premises, zero API costs, and no external service dependencies.

  • CISO evaluating browser security
    Pick: Push Security

    Requires visibility into browser-based attacks and compliance with AI regulations (per June 2026 news).

Frequently Asked Questions

Atomic Agent vs Push Security: which should you choose?

Choose Push Security if you’re a security team needing visibility into browser-based attacks and AI tool risks with out-of-the-box integrations. Choose Atomic Agent if you’re a developer wanting a private, local AI assistant with no cloud dependency. They address different problems—Push focuses on enterprise security, Atomic on personal automation.

Can Push Security work without deploying an enterprise browser?

Yes, Push Security operates as a browser extension across Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and others.

Does Atomic Agent require an internet connection?

No, it runs entirely locally; models, data, and execution stay on your machine except for optional Telegram/SMS sends.

What attacks does Push Security detect?

AiTM phishing, ClickFix, ConsentFix, session hijacking, malicious OAuth, and ghost logins.

Can Atomic Agent run on Windows or Linux?

Currently, Atomic Agent is macOS-only, though linux support may come in the future.

What integrations does Push Security offer?

Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace, Slack, Splunk, Snowflake, and more.

What hardware do I need for Atomic Agent?

A Mac with a decent GPU for local models; recommended 8GB+ VRAM for 7B-13B models.

Does Push Security offer a free tier?

Yes, a freemium tier with limited features; full capabilities start at $10/user/month.

How does Atomic Agent handle tool execution safety?

It uses approval gates (user must approve risky actions) and parallel execution with configurable gates.

More Atomic Agent or Push Security comparisons

Amplitude vs Push Security comparison

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

Sentry vs Push Security comparison

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

Looker vs Push Security comparison

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

Datadog vs Push Security comparison

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;

Power BI vs Push Security comparison

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

Tableau vs Push Security comparison

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

Atomic Agent
View Atomic Agent reviewAtomic Agent alternatives
Push Security
View Push Security reviewPush Security alternatives

Browse these categories

Best AI Local & On-Device AI toolsBest AI Threat Detection & SOC toolsBest AI Autonomous Coding Agents toolsBest AI Security & Privacy tools
Still deciding? Get the weekly AI tools brief

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

Last reviewed: July 3, 2026