Compare
Push Security is a broad SaaS / identity-security platform with shadow-IT discovery across many categories. GreyScape.ai is AI-native end to end — discovery, spend control, EU AI Act compliance, approved-models policy, audit. For any company whose urgent surface is AI specifically, GreyScape is the cleaner answer; Push covers AI as one of many categories.
Pick GreyScape.ai if…
AI is your urgent surface — EU AI Act enforcement in 53 days, AI spend climbing 20-30% MoM, ChatGPT Plus on personal cards, approval workflows for new AI tools. You want discovery + spend + compliance + approved-models policy in one AI-native platform, self-serve at $3/user/month, with a 14-day refund.
Pick Push Security if…
Your dominant problem is identity-threat detection (phishing, credential reuse, OAuth grant abuse) across the broader SaaS landscape — and AI is a secondary slice you'd address later.
Run GreyScape as your AI platform
Some security-led organisations run Push for the broad SaaS / identity-threat surface and GreyScape.ai for the AI-specific governance, spend, and EU AI Act layer. Both ship browser extensions but with different data models — Push prioritises identity-threat signals, we prioritise per-user AI-tool usage + AI-vendor billing reconciliation. They co-exist without conflict.
✓ = built in. ~ = partial / via integration. – = not offered (as of June 2026).
| Capability | GreyScape.ai | Push |
|---|---|---|
Shadow AI discovery (any tool, any browser) Detect AI tools employees use without IT knowing | ||
Browser-extension capture for AI tools Per-user telemetry calibrated for AI | ||
Card-feed + receipt parsing for AI vendors Find AI spend on company cards and personal expenses | ||
AI-vendor cost attribution (per-user $) Map every AI dollar to the person who spent it | ||
AI budgets at org / team / project scope Soft alerts at 75%, hard at 100% | ||
Anomaly detection for AI spend Catch a runaway loop before EOM | ||
EU AI Act compliance register Per-system risk classification, obligations, FRIA, audit pack | ||
Article 50 transparency triggers Detect AI systems requiring user-facing disclosure | ||
Approved-models policy Org-wide allowlist of which AI models employees can use | ||
Approval workflow + auto-provisioning Request → review → service-account key issued | ||
AI-vendor billing reconciliation OpenAI, Anthropic, GitHub Copilot — direct billing connect | ||
Tamper-evident audit log Cryptographic chaining (SHA-256, Postgres trigger) | ||
Self-serve signup at published price Launch in 5 min without a sales call | ||
14-day money-back refund No-questions exit, no sales call required | ||
SIEM forwarding Per-stream cursor, failure-isolated webhook |
Sources: vendor product pages, G2 reviews, public pricing pages as of June 2026. Anything wrong? Email [email protected] and we'll update.
AI-native discovery built for the AI surface
Our extension is calibrated for AI: Cursor, Claude.ai, Perplexity, midjourney.com, character.ai, niche image-gen and voice tools. We also parse AI-vendor receipts and card feeds, and reconcile against direct billing from OpenAI, Anthropic, and GitHub. The first week you typically uncover 3-5 AI tools that were running off-policy — Push surfaces SaaS broadly but doesn't calibrate for AI-specific tooling depth.
AI spend control — the loudest pain Push doesn't address
Per-user, per-vendor, per-token cost attribution. Org/team/project budgets that alert at 75% and block at 100%. Anomaly detection catches runaway loops before EOM. Push surfaces SaaS accounts; it doesn't reconcile AI billing, attribute spend, or enforce budgets. If AI spend climbing 20-30% MoM is your trigger, Push alone won't help.
EU AI Act compliance shipped, not on a roadmap
Per-system risk classification against Annex III. Obligation catalogue mapped to Articles 4, 9-17, 26, 27, 49, 50, 71, 73. Evidence vault. FRIA template. Article 50 transparency triggers. One-click audit pack. Push doesn't ship an EU AI Act module — different jobs. With enforcement in 53 days, this is decisive.
Approved-models policy + provisioning loop
Org-wide allowlist of which AI models (GPT-4 family, Claude Sonnet/Opus, Gemini, local Llama) employees are permitted to use. Approval workflow auto-issues service-account keys on approval. Push surfaces accounts; we close the loop with policy + enforcement + provisioning end to end.
AI-vendor billing reconciliation
Direct connects to OpenAI, Anthropic, GitHub, and other AI vendors reconcile usage telemetry against billing. That financial-truth layer is something Push's identity-first model doesn't have to do — but matters more in AI because spend is the loudest pain in the room.
Mid-market price + self-serve
$3/user/month, published, self-serve, 14-day refund. For a 100-seat team that's $3,600/year. Push anchors at enterprise-quoted contracts with a sales motion; mid-market buyers who need AI under control this week shouldn't wait for procurement.
Narrow scenarios where the honest recommendation is them, not us. For the typical mid-market buyer wrestling with shadow AI, EU AI Act, and AI spend in one quarter, GreyScape.ai is the cleaner answer.
Identity-threat detection across the SaaS landscape
Push catches credential reuse, phishing-page interaction, ghost accounts after offboarding, and OAuth-grant abuse across the broader SaaS surface. If identity threats are your budgeted programme, that depth is real and outside our AI focus.
Broad non-AI SaaS coverage
Push fingerprints thousands of SaaS tools across every category — CRM, design, dev tools, productivity. For inventorying the long tail of generic SaaS, that breadth is greater than ours. We're deliberately AI-focused.
Bottom line
Push Security is a competent broad SaaS / identity-security platform with AI as one category. GreyScape.ai is the AI-native platform — discovery, spend, EU AI Act, approved-models, audit — built for the AI problems mid-market companies actually face this quarter. If AI is your urgent surface, the answer is GreyScape.
Yes, for any company whose urgent surface is AI specifically. GreyScape is AI-native — discovery, spend, EU AI Act compliance, approved-models policy, audit — built for the AI use case end to end. Push covers AI as one of many categories within a broader SaaS / identity-security platform. If AI is what's keeping you up at night, GreyScape is the cleaner pick.
No. Push surfaces SaaS accounts including AI tools but doesn't parse AI-vendor billing, attribute spend to users, track per-token cost, enforce budgets, or detect spend anomalies. Those are GreyScape's core capabilities — and for most mid-market AI buyers, the most urgent pain.
Push has no dedicated EU AI Act module as of June 2026. GreyScape.ai ships a working compliance layer: per-system risk register against Annex III, obligation catalogue mapped to the Articles that matter (4, 9-17, 26, 27, 49, 50, 71, 73), evidence vault, FRIA template, Article 50 transparency triggers, one-click audit pack.
Push's extension prioritises identity-threat signals: credential reuse, phishing, OAuth grant abuse. GreyScape's extension is calibrated for AI: AI-tool usage telemetry reconciled against AI-vendor billing, surfacing per-user spend attribution, approved-models enforcement, and the EU AI Act register. Same delivery mechanism, different data models. Privacy posture is comparable — domains and usage counts, never page content or credentials.
GreyScape.ai is $3/user/month on Standard, published, self-serve, 14-day refund. Push anchors at enterprise-quoted contracts with a sales motion. For a 100-seat mid-market team, GreyScape is about $3,600/year and live in 15 minutes.
Yes — Push for broad SaaS / identity-threat surface, GreyScape for AI-specific governance, spend, and EU AI Act execution. The browser extensions co-exist without conflict; the data they collect doesn't overlap.
The demo workspace has seeded data — shadow AI findings, AI spend, budget alerts, compliance register — so you can click through GreyScape.ai in 5 minutes and decide.