Council vs Push Security

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

Analysis generated Live tool data as of 2026-11-13
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

Council or Push Security: which should you choose?

DimensionCouncilPush Security
What it ismacOS app that runs one question across a panel of LLMs with blind peer reviewBrowser-extension phishing/AiTM defense for security & identity teams
PricingFree (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
ScopeTwelve LLM backends; blind peer review; 0–100 divergence score; optional bounded debate; decision journalDetect/block AiTM, ClickFix, device code & consent phishing, malicious extensions, ghost logins, credential stuffing, infostealer delivery
CoveragemacOS only — no web, Windows, Linux or mobile versionAll popular browsers incl. AI & enterprise browsers and Chrome OS; no endpoint agent or enterprise browser migration
IntegrationsOllama, OpenRouter, llama.cpp, LM Studio, vLLMOkta, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365/Teams, Sentinel, Datadog, Splunk, SentinelOne, Slack, REST API
BuyerResearchers, developers and writers already juggling multiple LLM API keysSecurity/identity teams seeing phishing slip past email and SWG controls
Council
Council

Council runs a blind peer review between multiple AI models and scores how far apart their answers diverged.

Visit Website
Push Security
Push Security

Browser security extension that blocks AiTM phishing and ClickFix while giving teams shadow AI visibility

Visit Website
Pricing
Free
Paid
Plans
Free (MIT open source)Free
Standard$5/user/mo
EnterpriseCustom
Popularity
12 views
7.5k views
Skill Level
Intermediate
Advanced
API Available
Platforms
Desktop
Web
Categories
🔀 Multi-Model AI Chat📡 LLM Observability & Evals
🚨 Threat Detection & SOC🔒 Security & Privacy
FeaturesCouncilPush Security
Multi-model query — one prompt fanned out to three advisor seats in parallel
Twelve backends including Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Grok, Mistral, Perplexity and OpenRouter
Local model support via Ollama plus two custom OpenAI-compatible endpoints
On-device Apple Intelligence backend on macOS 26 Apple silicon
Blind peer review — advisors critique each other without knowing the author
Divergence score 0–100 with camps formed and outlier identification
Dissent view surfacing the outlier's full answer on its own
Optional bounded debate round — one rebuttal per advisor, originals kept underneath
Neutral chair model that moderates and writes the synthesis instead of answering
Selective deliberation — choose which answers enter peer review
Per-seat personas (Analyst, Practitioner, Skeptic) plus a Devil's Advocate role
Guest seat — paste an outside AI answer into blind review anonymously
Local decision journal with macOS reminder to log the outcome
Document attachment (.md/.txt) up to 20,000 chars plus image input for vision models
council CLI — pipe documents in, get JSON out, gate CI on divergence
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 via OAuth 2.0 Device Authorization Grant abuse
ConsentFix and malicious OAuth consent monitoring, blocking and app removal
Session hijacking and credential attack blocking with custom detection rules
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
AI prompt and data-input monitoring plus AI clipboard monitoring and blocking
AI file upload monitoring and AI OAuth / agent permission monitoring
AI usage policy enforcement blocking unsanctioned AI tools
Data loss prevention enforced at the point of interaction in the browser
Autonomous threat hunting agents that write detection rules and deploy blocks
Browser telemetry investigation and response across tabs and popups; REST API for custom integrations
IntegrationsCouncilPush Security
Ollama
OpenRouter
llama.cpp
LM Studio
vLLM
Apple Intelligence
Proofpoint
Okta
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Sentinel
Datadog
Splunk
SentinelOne
Slack

What 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 SWG
    Pick: 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 SSO
    Pick: 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 migration
    Pick: 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 claim
    Pick: 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 keys
    Pick: 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?

Where can you read more about Council 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: