Unbound vs Push Security

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

Analysis reviewed Live tool data as of 2026-10-11
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

At a glance

DimensionUnboundPush Security
Core FocusAI coding agent governance & securityBrowser security against attacks & AI tool data loss
PricingFreemium (paid tiers unlisted)Freemium (paid tiers unlisted)
Key IntegrationsCursor, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex, Cline, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Roo Code, Kilo Code, Splunk, Datadog, AWS MarketplaceOkta, Azure AD, Google Workspace, Slack, Splunk, Snowflake
Notable Recent NewsGitHub Copilot full enforcement via postToolUse hooks; MCP attack taxonomyCoined poisoned tenant attack; agentic threat hunting pipeline
Ideal BuyerSecurity/engineering teams governing AI coding agent usageSecurity teams needing browser-level attack & AI visibility
Distinctive CapabilityAgent inventory, risk scoring, policy engine for coding agentsAiTM/ClickFix detection + in-browser DLP for AI tools

Choose Push Security if you're defending against browser-based attacks (AiTM, session hijacking, shadow SaaS) and need to control employee use of AI tools like ChatGPT. Choose Unbound if your primary risk is AI coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot) and you need visibility, policy enforcement, and MCP security across your engineering org. They address different threat surfaces — Push is browser security, Unbound is coding agent governance — so purchase both if both apply.

Try UnboundTry Push Security
Unbound
Unbound

Unbound is an Agent Access Security Broker that discovers AI coding agents across your org and enforces policy on what they can run, reach, and touch.

Visit Website
Push Security
Push Security

Push Security: browser security for the AI era with AiTM, ClickFix and shadow AI controls

Visit Website
Pricing
Paid
Paid
Plans
$20/user/mo billed annually
Starting at $38/user/mo billed annually
$5/user/month
Custom
Popularity
8 views
7.5k views
Skill Level
Advanced
Advanced
API Available
Platforms
WebCLIAPI
Web
Categories
🛡️ AI Governance & Guardrails🔐 Application & Code Security
🚨 Threat Detection & SOC🔒 Security & Privacy
Features
Continuous agent discovery across Cursor, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Cline, Codex, Windsurf and more
MCP server enumeration and configuration mapping with connection risk alerts
MCP action policies that block, audit, or require approval on individual tool calls
Terminal command allow/deny policies using semantic parsing
Policy actions of Audit, Warn, Block, or Approve on agent operations
Native lifecycle Hooks for zero-friction coverage with no proxy or agent reinstall
Gateway mode for full API-level request and response visibility
GitHub Copilot CLI enforcement via postToolUse hooks (audit, warn, approve, block)
Per-developer security posture scores benchmarked against baselines
Autonomy banding into Ask First, Auto Edit, and Full Auto
Continuous agent inventory with installation drift detection
IDE plugin mapping across VS Code and JetBrains
Approval workflows for high-risk agent operations
Full audit log of agent actions with SIEM export (Splunk, Datadog) on Enterprise
Prompt injection and MCP attack detection signals and defensive controls
Real-time AiTM reverse-proxy phishing detection and blocking in the browser
Cloned login page, Browser-in-the-Browser (BitB) and Browser-in-the-Middle (BitM) detection
ClickFix clipboard injection blocking at the point of interaction
Device code phishing detection that catches token theft bypassing passkeys
Consent phishing detection with OAuth consent monitoring, blocking and app removal
Session hijacking detection, credential stuffing detection and ghost login hunting
QR code and SMS mobile phishing detection
Malicious browser extension detection, risk scoring, allowlisting and removal
Extension supply chain change monitoring for ownership transfers and permission escalations
Shadow AI app discovery and agentic browser detection for Comet, Atlas and Dia
AI prompt and data-input monitoring with configurable clipboard blocking
AI file upload monitoring and AI OAuth/agent permission monitoring
AI usage policy enforcement that blocks unsanctioned tools
Autonomous threat-hunting agents that write detection rules and deploy blocks
Configurable per-control response modes: monitor, warn or block
Integrations
Cursor
Claude Code
GitHub Copilot
Codex
Cline
Windsurf
Gemini CLI
Roo Code
Kilo Code
Splunk
Datadog
Slack
AWS Marketplace
GCP Marketplace
Azure Marketplace
Okta
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Sentinel
SentinelOne
Proofpoint

What real users say: Unbound 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.

Unbound

114 mentions across 7 sources · 44% positive — mixed (averaged across 7 sources)

Hacker News, YouTube, Product Hunt, Bluesky, Stack Overflow, GitHub, Lemmy

What users praise

  • • Fast recursive DNS with caching – lightning local response times.
  • • Wildcard-based domain blocking for easy ad-blocking lists.
  • • Runs on minimal hardware like Raspberry Pi and Alpine Linux.
  • • Supports DoH and DoT for encrypted queries.

What frustrates them

  • • DoH support requires manual compilation if libnghttp2 absent.
  • • Can crash or SERVFAIL under heavy TCP recursive load.
  • • Setup complexity higher than using public DNS resolvers.
  • • No built-in ad-blocking; relies on external blocklist management.

Researched Jul 6, 2026

Push Security

30 mentions across 3 sources · 34% positive — critical (weighted across 3 sources)

Hacker News, YouTube, Lemmy

What users praise

  • • Interaction-level detection catches ClickFix, OAuth consent phishing and pastes that URL-reputation tools miss
  • • Explicit AiTM, BitB and BitM reverse-proxy coverage addresses the phishing class that beats MFA
  • • Shadow-AI discovery and policy enforcement is a genuinely differentiated control for 2025-era risk
  • • No endpoint agent, no network appliance — deployment is extension-based and fast

What frustrates them

  • • Nearly no independent community reviews — Reddit, Product Hunt and GitHub data is essentially absent
  • • Browser-extension-only coverage leaves non-browser auth paths and mobile-first flows unmonitored
  • • Blocking at the paste/upload/consent level risks interrupting legitimate workflows and generating tickets
  • • Autonomous threat-hunting agents risk adding noise to already-overloaded SOC alert queues

Researched Oct 7, 2026

Who should pick which

  • CISO at a mid-size company worried about phishing and AI data leakage
    Pick: Push Security

    Push Security directly addresses adversary-in-the-middle attacks, session hijacking, and shadow AI usage — top concerns for a CISO facing modern browser-based threats.

  • Head of Engineering enabling AI coding agents
    Pick: Unbound

    Unbound provides agent discovery, risk posture scoring, and policy enforcement for Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot, etc., giving engineering confidence to adopt agents without security blind spots.

  • Security operations analyst handling browser threats
    Pick: Push Security

    Push's agentic threat hunting and real-time blocks on ClickFix, OAuth phishing, and malicious extensions reduce manual triage for SOC teams.

  • Compliance officer in regulated industry (finance/healthcare)
    Pick: Unbound

    Unbound's policy engine (Audit/Warn/Block/Approve) and MCP security help meet regulatory requirements for coding agent use, as highlighted in its latest news about compliance.

  • Single security generalist at a startup
    Pick: Push Security

    Push's freemium model and broad browser protection give a lean team visibility into attacks and AI usage without deploying multiple tools.

Frequently Asked Questions

Unbound vs Push Security: which should you choose?

Choose Push Security if you're defending against browser-based attacks (AiTM, session hijacking, shadow SaaS) and need to control employee use of AI tools like ChatGPT. Choose Unbound if your primary risk is AI coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot) and you need visibility, policy enforcement, and MCP security across your engineering org. They address different threat surfaces — Push is browser security, Unbound is coding agent governance — so purchase both if both apply.

Can Push Security detect AI coding agent risks?

Push Security focuses on browser-level AI tool use (like ChatGPT) and data leakage, not specifically on coding agents like Cursor or Claude Code. For coding agent governance, use Unbound.

Does Unbound protect against browser phishing attacks?

No, Unbound is purpose-built for AI coding agent security. It does not address traditional browser attacks like phishing or session hijacking. That's Push Security's domain.

Do these tools overlap in any way?

Minimal overlap. Push covers browser-based attacks and general AI tool DLP; Unbound covers AI coding agent inventory and enforcement. They complement each other if both threats exist in your org.

Are both tools cloud-based?

Push Security is cloud-based (no on-premises option per its 'not_for' section). Unbound's deployment model is not specified in the data, but its integrations suggest a cloud service.

Can I use both tools together?

Yes, they integrate with different ecosystems (Push with identity/SIEM, Unbound with coding tools) and solve different problems. A large org might deploy both.

Which tool is better for a small team?

If you use AI coding agents, Unbound's freemium is valuable. If you face browser attacks or shadow AI, Push's freemium helps. For small teams not using coding agents yet, Push is more relevant.

Do either support GitHub Copilot?

Unbound explicitly supports GitHub Copilot with full enforcement via postToolUse hooks as of May 2026. Push Security does not mention Copilot in its features.

Which tool handles MCP servers?

Unbound specializes in MCP server enumeration, risk assessment, and connection policies. Push Security does not mention MCP.

More Unbound or Push Security comparisons

Amplitude vs Push Security comparison

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

Looker vs Push Security comparison

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

Sentry vs Push Security comparison

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

Datadog vs Push Security comparison

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;

Power BI vs Push Security comparison

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

Tableau vs Push Security comparison

There is no buying decision here. Push Security protects browsers from AiTM, ClickFix, device code and consent phishing and gives security teams visibility into shadow AI usage at roughly $5/user/mont

Explore each tool further

Unbound
View Unbound reviewUnbound alternatives
Push Security
View Push Security reviewPush Security alternatives

Browse these categories

Best AI AI Governance & Guardrails toolsBest AI Threat Detection & SOC toolsBest AI Application & Code Security 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 3, 2026