OpenHack vs Push Security

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

Analysis reviewed Live tool data as of 2026-08-23
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

At a glance

DimensionOpenHackPush Security
PricingFreemiumFreemium
Primary FocusAI-powered SAST for logic vulnerabilitiesBrowser security (AiTM, session hijacking, AI tool DLP)
DeploymentCLI (pipx/uv) or hosted platformCloud-based browser extension
IntegrationsGitHub, GitLab, Slack, JiraOkta, Azure AD, Google Workspace, Slack, Splunk, Snowflake
Key DifferentiatorVerified findings with working PoC exploits, 40x lower costReal-time browser telemetry + agentic threat hunting
Latest News2026-06-09: Launched as open-source AI security agent on open models2026-06-26: Experienced poisoned tenant attack, shared lessons

Push Security and OpenHack serve fundamentally different security needs. Push is ideal for organizations seeking real-time browser-level defense against phishing, session hijacking, and AI tool data leakage, with deep identity integrations. OpenHack excels for developers and security teams needing cost-effective, verified vulnerability detection in code, with auto-generated exploits and fix PRs. Choose Push if browser-based threats and AI governance are urgent; choose OpenHack if you prioritize code security with minimal false positives.

Try OpenHackTry Push Security
OpenHack
OpenHack

Open-source AI security agent that verifies vulnerabilities with working exploits.

Visit Website
Push Security
Push Security

Browser security for the AI era: detect and block AI-powered attacks.

Visit Website
Pricing
Freemium
Freemium
Plans
$0 / forever
$20 / month, flat
$200 / month, flat
Custom
$5/user/month (annual) or monthly per user
Custom
Popularity
2 views
7.5k views
Skill Level
Intermediate
Advanced
API Available
Platforms
CLIWeb
Web
Categories
🔐 Application & Code Security
🚨 Threat Detection & SOC🔒 Security & Privacy
Features
Autonomous end-to-end pentests against live systems
AI codebase scanning with verified PoC exploits
Open-source model support, provider agnostic
CLI via pipx or uv, runs locally
PR security reviews on pull requests
One-click AI Autofix pull requests
Full repository scanning
Business impact prioritization beyond CVSS
Supply chain dependency tracking
Secret scanning for leaked keys and tokens
Signed SBOM generation
AI Assistant for security questions
Basic Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
Context-aware scanning across codebase, infra, auth flows
Multi-stack support (JS, TS, Python, Go, Java, Ruby, Next.js, Django, Flask, Rails, Express, FastAPI)
AitM / reverse-proxy phishing detection
ClickFix / clipboard injection blocking
Session hijacking detection and blocking
Malicious OAuth consent flow blocking
Ghost login discovery (password fallback paths)
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
In-browser MFA registration and password change guardrails
Illicit browser extension detection and blocking
Extension allowlisting with default-deny management
Device code phishing detection
Shadow SaaS discovery and control
Integrations
GitHub
GitLab
Slack
Jira
Okta
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Sentinel
Datadog
Splunk Cloud
SentinelOne
Webhooks
REST API

What real users say: OpenHack 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.

OpenHack

46 mentions across 4 sources · 60% positive — mixed

Hacker News, YouTube, Bluesky, GitHub

What users praise

  • • Open-source MIT license enables unrestricted use and modification.
  • • Generates working proof-of-concept exploits, eliminating false positives.
  • • Claims up to 40x lower cost than frontier AI security agents.
  • • Supports multiple languages: JS, TS, Python, Go, Java, Ruby.

What frustrates them

  • • Almost no real user testimonials for the actual security tool.
  • • Brand confusion with unrelated OpenHack projects hurts discoverability.
  • • Dependent on third-party AI harnesses for operation.
  • • SCA feature is basic, not deep package analysis.

Researched Jul 5, 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

  • Solo developer
    Pick: OpenHack

    OpenHack provides free, verified vulnerability scanning with auto-generated fixes, ideal for solo developers needing reliable security without noise.

  • Security team at enterprise
    Pick: Push Security

    Push Security covers browser-based attacks (AiTM, session hijacking) and AI tool DLP, integrating with identity providers and SIEM for enterprise-scale visibility.

  • Open-source maintainer
    Pick: OpenHack

    OpenHack offers continuous scanning and PR reviews for open-source projects, with low cost and open-source models aligning with community values.

  • Identity/IAM team
    Pick: Push Security

    Push Security hardens unmanaged identities, detects ghost logins, and enforces MFA/SSO adoption, fitting identity teams' needs.

  • Security operations (SOC)
    Pick: Push Security

    Push Security provides automated threat hunting via browser telemetry and integrates with Splunk/Snowflake, augmenting SOC capabilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

OpenHack vs Push Security: which should you choose?

Push Security and OpenHack serve fundamentally different security needs. Push is ideal for organizations seeking real-time browser-level defense against phishing, session hijacking, and AI tool data leakage, with deep identity integrations. OpenHack excels for developers and security teams needing cost-effective, verified vulnerability detection in code, with auto-generated exploits and fix PRs. Choose Push if browser-based threats and AI governance are urgent; choose OpenHack if you prioritize code security with minimal false positives.

Are Push Security and OpenHack competitors?

No, they address different security domains: Push focuses on browser-based attacks and AI tool governance, while OpenHack targets code vulnerabilities via AI-powered SAST.

Do both tools offer free tiers?

Yes, both have freemium models with free tiers suitable for initial evaluation or small teams.

Can OpenHack be deployed on-prem?

OpenHack supports on-premise deployment options in its Pro+ plan, using only OSS models.

Can Push Security detect phishing in mobile?

Yes, Push Security detects mobile phishing via SMS/QR codes, as listed in its features.

Does OpenHack generate fix PRs?

Yes, OpenHack auto-generates fix PRs with a one-click autofix feature for verified vulnerabilities.

Which tool is better for AI governance?

Push Security is designed for AI governance, offering AI tool visibility, usage controls, and in-browser DLP for AI tools.

Is OpenHack truly open-source?

Yes, OpenHack uses OSS models only and is built by Titan Security Labs, as per its description.

What integrations do they support?

Push Security integrates with Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace, Slack, Splunk, Snowflake. OpenHack integrates with GitHub, GitLab, Slack, Jira.

More OpenHack 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

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

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 (

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

Explore each tool further

OpenHack
View OpenHack reviewOpenHack alternatives
Push Security
View Push Security reviewPush Security alternatives

Browse these categories

Best AI Application & Code Security toolsBest AI Threat Detection & SOC 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 5, 2026