Council vs Push Security
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings
Council or Push Security: which should you choose?
| Dimension | Council | Push Security |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | macOS app that runs one question across a panel of LLMs with blind peer review | Browser-extension phishing/AiTM defense for security & identity teams |
| Pricing | Free (you bring your own LLM API keys; local Ollama or self-hosted endpoints if you want) | Paid — ~$5/user/month, positioned for mid-market teams under 500 seats |
| Scope | Twelve LLM backends; blind peer review; 0–100 divergence score; optional bounded debate; decision journal | Detect/block AiTM, ClickFix, device code & consent phishing, malicious extensions, ghost logins, credential stuffing, infostealer delivery |
| Coverage | macOS only — no web, Windows, Linux or mobile version | All popular browsers incl. AI & enterprise browsers and Chrome OS; no endpoint agent or enterprise browser migration |
| Integrations | Ollama, OpenRouter, llama.cpp, LM Studio, vLLM | Okta, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365/Teams, Sentinel, Datadog, Splunk, SentinelOne, Slack, REST API |
| Buyer | Researchers, developers and writers already juggling multiple LLM API keys | Security/identity teams seeing phishing slip past email and SWG controls |

Council runs a blind peer review between multiple AI models and scores how far apart their answers diverged.
Visit Website
Browser security extension that blocks AiTM phishing and ClickFix while giving teams shadow AI visibility
Visit WebsiteWhat do real users say about Council 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.
Council
No verifiable community signal. We scanned public discussion on Oct 16, 2026 and found posts matching the name “Council”, but could not establish that they are about this product rather than something else sharing its name. Rather than publish a score built on the wrong subject, we publish none.
Push Security
46 mentions across 4 sources · 49% positive — mixed (weighted across 4 sources)
Hacker News, YouTube, Bluesky, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Detection targets browser-native attacks email gateways miss: AiTM, ClickFix, Browser-in-the-Browser
- • Publishes credible, frequently-cited research on ClickFix, ConsentFix and device-code phishing
- • No endpoint agent and no forced enterprise browser — works across Chrome, AI and enterprise browsers
- • Secure AI coverage includes shadow-AI discovery and agentic-browser detection for Comet, Atlas, Dia
What frustrates them
- • Independent customer reviews of accuracy and false positives are largely absent from this data
- • Browser extension with deep page, clipboard and prompt access raises privacy/DPO scrutiny
- • Advanced skill requirement and many controls imply real tuning effort before value
- • Overlaps with secure web gateways and email security you may already pay for
Researched Nov 7, 2026
How do Council and Push Security compare feature by feature?
Push Security and Council have almost no capability overlap. Push Security is a browser extension that watches the interaction itself: it detects and blocks AiTM reverse-proxy phishing in real time, cloned logins, Browser-in-the-Browser and Browser-in-the-Middle, ClickFix clipboard injection at the point of interaction, and device code phishing kits designed to bypass passkeys. It also covers consent phishing with OAuth monitoring, blocking and app removal, plus a malicious browser-extension inventory with risk scoring, allowlisting/blocking, and supply-chain change monitoring (ownership transfers, permission escalations, delisting). On the identity side it adds ghost-login detection for password fallback paths that bypass SSO, credential-stuffing detection across SaaS logins, QR/SMS mobile phishing and infostealer delivery response. It runs across popular browsers including AI and enterprise browsers plus Chrome OS — no endpoint agent, no network appliance, no enterprise-browser migration. Council answers a completely different question: it poses one prompt to twelve LLM backends (Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Grok, Mistral, Perplexity, OpenRouter, Ollama, Apple Intelligence, two custom OpenAI-compatible), has each advisor critique the others blind, and returns a 0–100 divergence score showing how many camps formed and who the outlier is. Extras include a bounded debate round, dissent spotlight, neutral chair synthesis, devil's advocate role, guest seat for pasting outside answers, and a local decision journal. Council is macOS-only; Push is a browser layer. They don't touch the same surface.
Which is cheaper, Council or Push Security?
The pricing models are structurally incomparable. Push Security is paid and priced per user — about $5/user/month, positioned for mid-market security teams under 500 seats. It's a line item a security or identity budget owner approves, and the value proposition is tied to stopping AiTM, ClickFix, device code and consent phishing that email and SWG controls miss, plus shadow AI governance and browser telemetry. There's no free tier described, so evaluating it means a procurement conversation rather than a download. Council is free as an app. Your real cost is the LLM API keys you already pay for across providers — Council itself just orchestrates them. If you use Ollama, self-hosted llama.cpp, LM Studio or vLLM endpoints, you can run the whole deliberation locally with no account and no telemetry, which keeps marginal cost near zero. Council has no seat-based pricing, no team plan, no shared workspaces and no multi-user accounts, so it doesn't scale across an org the way Push does. In short: Push is a per-seat security subscription for a team; Council is a free personal tool whose cost lives in the API keys you already own.
Who should pick Council, and who should pick Push Security?
- Mid-market security lead seeing AiTM/ClickFix slip past email and SWGPick: Push Security
Push blocks AiTM reverse-proxy pages, ClickFix clipboard injection and device code phishing at the browser interaction layer across popular browsers at ~$5/user/month.
- Identity team hunting ghost logins and password fallback paths bypassing SSOPick: Push Security
Ghost login detection and credential-stuffing detection across SaaS logins target exactly the non-SSO fallback paths those teams worry about.
- SecOps team needing browser telemetry and response without an enterprise-browser migrationPick: Push Security
Extension-based deployment across AI and enterprise browsers plus Chrome OS, with Okta, Google Workspace, M365, Sentinel, Datadog, Splunk and Slack integrations and a REST API.
- Researcher cross-checking AI reasoning before trusting a claimPick: Council
Blind peer review across twelve LLM backends plus a 0–100 divergence score surfaces disagreement instead of three paraphrases of one answer.
- Privacy-conscious Mac user who already pays for multiple LLM keysPick: Council
Run the council against local Ollama or self-hosted endpoints with no account or telemetry, and use Ollama, OpenRouter, llama.cpp, LM Studio or vLLM for full local control.
Frequently Asked Questions
Would a security team ever evaluate Push Security against Council?
No. Push Security defends browsers against phishing and session theft; Council compares LLM answers on a Mac. They don't share buyers, budgets or problems.
Does Council do anything security-related that overlaps with Push?
It doesn't address phishing, AiTM or browser session theft at all. Council's only security-adjacent trait is that a local Ollama or self-hosted setup keeps prompts and data off third-party servers.
Can Council be deployed company-wide like Push Security?
No. Council is a native macOS app with no shared workspaces, multi-user accounts or collaborative review, so it stays a personal tool rather than a seat-based rollout.
Does Push Security care about which LLM backends I use?
Not in that sense. Push includes shadow AI discovery and control over prompts, clipboard use and LLM uploads, which is governance of AI usage — a different job from Council running twelve named backends for deliberation.
What's the cheapest way to try each?
Council is free to install on a Mac; you only cover your own API keys or local endpoints. Push Security has no free tier described, so expect a per-seat procurement conversation at roughly $5/user/month.
Could a modern phishing kit target someone using Council?
The attack surface Push Security describes — hostile AI chatbot pages and shared-content links on trusted domains — is aimed at users generally, not Council specifically. Council has no browser extension, so Push's browser-layer detections wouldn't apply to a Council session anyway.
What else are Council and Push Security compared with?
These aren't competitors — they're not even in the same category. Praktika sells spoken-language reps to a phone user on a small monthly budget; Council sells structured multi-model reasoning to a Mac
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
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 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 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 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
Where can you read more about Council and Push Security?
Browse these categories
One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.
Analysis generated by our model pipeline from live data: