Atomic Agent vs Push Security

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

Analysis reviewed Live tool data as of 2026-09-01
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

At a glance

DimensionAtomic AgentPush Security
PricingFree (no cost)Freemium (paid plans start at $10/user/mo)
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 on your machine, drives your real tools, and keeps every session on your own disk.

Visit Website
Push Security
Push Security

Browser-native security that stops AI-driven attacks and secures employee AI usage

Visit Website
Pricing
Free
Freemium
Plans
$0/mo
$5/user/month
Custom
Popularity
3 views
7.5k views
Skill Level
Advanced
Advanced
API Available
Platforms
DesktopCLIAPIPlugin
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
GBNF grammar-constrained decoding for valid tool calls
KV-cache reuse across turns for fast inference
SQLite-backed external memory (profile, facts, lessons)
Browser automation for research and note-taking
File sorting, renaming, grouping, cleaning by content
Shell and git tool access for repo tasks
Vision support
Cron, interval, and webhook scheduling
MCP (Model Context Protocol) server support
Skills system for reusable playbooks
Parallel tool execution with approval gates on risky actions
OpenAI-compatible HTTP API
Telegram integration
Terminal UI with session management
Behavioral phishing detection
Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing detection and blocking
ClickFix / clipboard injection blocking
Device code phishing detection and blocking
Malicious OAuth consent blocking
Session hijacking detection
Credential stuffing detection
Ghost login detection and SSO guardrails
MFA enforcement via in-browser guardrails
Shadow AI app discovery and inventory
AI prompt and data input monitoring
AI file upload monitoring and blocking
Agentic browser detection (Comet, Atlas, Dia)
Autonomous threat hunting agents
Browser extension inventory, risk scoring, and blocking
Integrations
Telegram
Git
SQLite
MCP servers
Shell
Browser (headless)
OpenAI-compatible APIs
OpenRouter
Okta
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Sentinel
Datadog
Splunk Cloud
SentinelOne
Slack
Webhooks
REST API

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

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 · 43% positive — mixed

Hacker News, YouTube, Lemmy

What users praise

  • • Works as a lightweight extension across all major browsers without forcing a single proprietary browser.
  • • Detects advanced threats like AiTM phishing, ClickFix, session hijacking, and malicious OAuth flows.
  • • Autonomous hunting agents analyze browser telemetry to write and deploy detection rules at machine speed.
  • • Provides comprehensive AI usage governance: inventory, prompt monitoring, file upload blocking, and unsanctioned app control.

What frustrates them

  • • No independent community feedback or real-user reviews available to verify claims.
  • • Requires advanced security expertise to configure and interpret telemetry effectively.
  • • High-fidelity telemetry collection may trigger privacy and compliance red flags.
  • • Potential for false positives in blocking legitimate OAuth and extension actions.

Researched Aug 26, 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

Looker vs Push Security comparison

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

Amplitude vs Push Security comparison

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

Sentry vs Push Security comparison

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

Datadog vs Push Security comparison

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

Tableau vs Push Security comparison

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 (

Power BI vs Push Security comparison

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

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