Gateway vs Push Security
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings
At a glance
| Dimension | Gateway | Push Security |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Freemium (free tier 3d log retention, paid plans start at $99/mo) | Freemium (enterprise pricing undisclosed) |
| Primary Focus | Unified API gateway for 1600+ LLMs with routing, guardrails, observability | Browser security against AiTM phishing, session hijacking, AI data loss |
| Key Differentiator | MCP Gateway for agent governance and multi-provider LLM routing | Autonomous threat hunting agents using browser telemetry |
| Deployment | Cloud proxy or self-hosted open-source core | Cloud-based browser extension (multi-browser) |
| Ideal For | Platform teams managing LLM access, cost, and reliability | Security teams fighting browser-based attacks and shadow AI |
| Integration Ecosystem | 1600+ LLMs across 250+ providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek, etc.) | Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace, Slack, Splunk, Snowflake |
Don't compare apples to oranges: Push Security is a browser security platform for stopping AiTM phishing and AI data loss, while Gateway is an LLM API gateway for routing, guardrailing, and monitoring AI usage. If you're a security team worried about browser-based attacks, choose Push Security. If you're a platform team managing multiple LLMs and need cost/performance optimization with guardrails, choose Gateway.
Unified API gateway to route, secure, and observe 3000+ LLMs across 1600+ providers.
Visit Website
What real users say: Gateway 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.
Gateway
69 mentions across 5 sources · 52% positive — mixed
Reddit, Hacker News, App Store, GitHub, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Unified API for 1600+ LLMs from 250+ providers simplifies multi-model management.
- • Built-in guardrails (deterministic and LLM-based) enhance safety and compliance.
- • Enterprise-grade features: SSO, SOC 2, HIPAA, RBAC, and virtual key management.
- • Generous free tier with open-source core fosters adoption and customization.
What frustrates them
- • Almost no real community feedback—trust relies on vendor claims and GitHub metrics alone.
- • 211 open GitHub issues may signal unresolved bugs or slow issue resolution.
- • No direct user testimonials about ease of setup or developer experience.
- • Support quality is unverified—no reviews on response times or helpfulness.
Researched Jul 3, 2026
Push Security
36 mentions across 3 sources · 30% positive — critical
Hacker News, YouTube, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Deploys as extension across all major browsers, avoiding enterprise lock-in
- • Autonomous hunting agents detect and block zero-day threats in real time
- • Addresses emerging AiTM phishing, ClickFix, and session hijacking attacks
- • Provides shadow AI discovery and governance, a growing need
What frustrates them
- • Limited independent reviews and community deployment case studies
- • Extension-based agent may impact browser performance on low-end devices
- • Pricing for advanced features likely steep for SMBs
- • Configuration complexity requires skilled security engineers
Researched Aug 18, 2026
Who should pick which
- Security team leaderPick: Push Security
Concerned about AiTM phishing, session hijacking, and employees feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT. Push Security provides real-time in-browser detection and block, plus shadow SaaS discovery.
- Platform engineer managing AI stackPick: Gateway
Needs to route to multiple LLMs, enforce guardrails, cache responses, and monitor spend across teams. Gateway offers unified API, smart routing, and observability.
- CISO evaluating AI securityPick: Push Security
Pressured to secure both AI tool adoption and identity attacks. Push Security's browser telemetry covers both, with agentic threat hunting as force multiplier.
- DevOps deploying AI agents in productionPick: Gateway
Needs agent governance via MCP Gateway, request/response monitoring, and cost control across agents. Gateway's latest MCP governance features fit directly.
- Identity manager reducing shadow MFAPick: Push Security
Push Security provides in-browser MFA registration guardrails and detects ghost logins, helping harden unmanaged identities across any browser.
Frequently Asked Questions
Gateway vs Push Security: which should you choose?
Don't compare apples to oranges: Push Security is a browser security platform for stopping AiTM phishing and AI data loss, while Gateway is an LLM API gateway for routing, guardrailing, and monitoring AI usage. If you're a security team worried about browser-based attacks, choose Push Security. If you're a platform team managing multiple LLMs and need cost/performance optimization with guardrails, choose Gateway.
Can I use Push Security and Gateway together?
Yes. They solve different problems: Push Security secures the browser, Gateway secures LLM API calls. Using both gives comprehensive AI security coverage.
Does Push Security require an enterprise browser?
No. It works as a browser extension across Chrome, Edge, Firefox, etc., without forcing a browser migration.
Does Gateway support on-premises deployment?
Yes. Its open-source core can be self-hosted; the cloud version is also available.
Which tool is better for AI agent safety?
Gateway's MCP Gateway is explicitly designed for agent governance (see news). Push Security focuses on human browsing, not agent-to-LLM comms.
Which tool detects shadow SaaS?
Push Security detects ghost logins and shadow SaaS via browser telemetry. Gateway does not.
Does either tool offer a free trial?
Both have freemium tiers. Push Security requires contacting sales for full features; Gateway has a free tier with limitations.
Which tool integrates with Okta?
Push Security integrates directly with Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace. Gateway integrates via SSO but not identity-specific features.
Which tool is cheaper?
Gateway's free tier is generous for low volume. Push Security's pricing likely higher per-user. Budget depends on number of users vs API calls.
More Gateway or Push Security comparisons
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
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
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
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
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 (
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
Explore each tool further
Browse these categories
One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.
Last reviewed: July 3, 2026