Kastra vs Push Security
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings
At a glance
| Dimension | Kastra | Push Security |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | Runtime authorization for AI coding agents | Browser-based attack detection and AI tool governance |
| Key Detection/Enforcement | Shell commands, file edits, API calls, browser actions; blocks before execution | AiTM phishing, ClickFix, session hijacking, malicious OAuth, data leakage to AI tools |
| Integration Targets | Claude Code, Cursor, Codex CLI, OpenClaw, Datadog, Splunk, S3 | Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace, Slack, Teams, Sentinel, Datadog, Splunk |
| Deployment | macOS GUI + CLI; cloud control plane (US, EU, AP); self-hosted/air-gapped available | Cloud-based; browser extension across Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, etc. |
| Best For | Dev teams using AI coding agents who need guardrails against destructive commands | Security/identity teams securing browser-based attacks and shadow AI usage |
| Pricing | Freemium (free local Edge governance; cloud plans require subscription) | Freemium (details not specified beyond free tier) |
Push Security and Kastra solve different problems: Push protects against browser-level attacks and shadow AI tool use across all browsers, while Kastra prevents AI coding agents from executing dangerous actions in real time. If your priority is defending users from AiTM phishing, malicious OAuth, and data leakage to AI sites, go with Push Security. If you need runtime guardrails for Claude Code, Cursor, or similar agents to stop destructive commands, choose Kastra.
Browser-native security that blocks AI-driven phishing and secures AI app usage in the browser.
Visit WebsiteWhat real users say: Kastra 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.
Kastra
75 mentions across 5 sources · 35% positive — critical (averaged across 5 sources)
Hacker News, YouTube, Product Hunt, Bluesky, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Proactive runtime enforcement instead of reactive monitoring.
- • Cross-framework support for Claude, Cursor, Codex, and OpenClaw.
- • Policy-based permissions that don't rely on agent's judgment.
- • Real-time approval workflows for risky operations.
What frustrates them
- • No public evidence against red-teamed or adversarial agents.
- • Unclear how nested tool calls are policed downstream.
- • Community feedback limited to launch platforms only.
- • No long-term reliability or performance data available.
Researched Jul 23, 2026
Push Security
30 mentions across 3 sources · 30% positive — critical (weighted across 3 sources)
Hacker News, YouTube, Lemmy
What users praise
- • Addresses emerging threats: AI-driven phishing, ClickFix, device code phishing.
- • Works across all major browsers without migrating users.
- • Includes shadow AI app discovery and control for unsanctioned tools.
- • Blocks malicious OAuth consents and session hijacking in real time.
What frustrates them
- • Virtually no independent user feedback or case studies available.
- • Potential browser performance overhead due to constant monitoring.
- • May cause friction with false positives blocking legitimate apps.
- • Advanced features require security expertise to configure properly.
Researched Sep 8, 2026
Who should pick which
- Security team combatting phishing and shadow AIPick: Push Security
Push Security detects and blocks AiTM, ClickFix, and session hijacking while providing visibility into AI tool usage and data leakage, all without requiring a proprietary browser.
- Developer using Claude Code or CursorPick: Kastra
Kastra intercepts agent actions in real time, enforcing policies on shell, file, and network operations without slowing workflows, and provides signed audit trails for compliance.
- Platform team governing AI agent usagePick: Kastra
Kastra's Policy Decision Point and approval workflows allow centralized control over agent actions across a team, with streaming to SIEM for audit.
- Identity team hardening MFA adoptionPick: Push Security
Push Security's in-browser MFA registration guardrails and password change protection help enforce identity policies and detect ghost logins.
- Compliance officer requiring agent traceabilityPick: Kastra
Kastra's ed25519-signed append-only audit trail ensures tamper-proof logs of all agent actions, meeting rigorous compliance requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Kastra vs Push Security: which should you choose?
Push Security and Kastra solve different problems: Push protects against browser-level attacks and shadow AI tool use across all browsers, while Kastra prevents AI coding agents from executing dangerous actions in real time. If your priority is defending users from AiTM phishing, malicious OAuth, and data leakage to AI sites, go with Push Security. If you need runtime guardrails for Claude Code, Cursor, or similar agents to stop destructive commands, choose Kastra.
Can Push Security work alongside an existing EDR or browser?
Yes, Push Security is designed to complement EDR by providing browser-specific telemetry that EDRs may miss, and works across all major browsers including Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, Brave, Opera, Arc, and enterprise browsers like Island.
Does Kastra support AI agents other than Claude Code and Cursor?
Currently Kastra supports Claude Code, Cursor, Codex CLI, and OpenClaw. Support for other agents like Copilot or Gemini may require custom SDK integration.
Is Push Security's detection fully automated?
Push Security uses autonomous agents that hunt with browser telemetry in real time, writing detection rules and deploying blocks without analyst intervention.
Can Kastra be used for non-coding AI agents?
Kastra intercepts actions across shell, file, network, database, and browser contexts, so it could apply to any agent that performs those actions, but it is primarily designed for coding agents as listed.
What deployment options does Kastra offer for air-gapped environments?
Kastra provides self-hosted and air-gapped deployment options in addition to its cloud control plane with US, EU, and AP regions.
Does Push Security offer mobile phishing detection?
Yes, Push Security detects mobile phishing via SMS and QR codes as part of its browser-based protection.
Can Kastra block a command before it executes?
Yes, Kastra's PDP evaluates each action before execution and can block or require approval for sensitive actions in real time.
How does Push Security handle AI tool data loss prevention?
Push Security provides in-browser DLP for AI tools by controlling clipboard data and file uploads to prevent sensitive data from being sent to LLMs.
More Kastra 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
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
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 (
Explore each tool further
Browse these categories
One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.
Last reviewed: July 23, 2026