Comparison
HeaderHawk vs Csper
Csper is the other developer-first CSP tool, and the most similar product on this list in spirit: CSP only, built around reading reports rather than around a compliance narrative, run by a small team.
The differences are real but narrow. Csper does more with the policy itself — it generates and evaluates policies, which HeaderHawk does not do at all. HeaderHawk starts free and its first paid step is $39 against Csper's $50, but Csper gives 90 days of retention and unlimited users at that price where HeaderHawk gives 30 and 10.
Two small products, honestly compared: the table below is most of the decision.
Side by side
Every figure in the Csper column is quoted from their own published page, read on 11 September 2026. The HeaderHawk column is generated from the same data as our pricing page, so it cannot drift from it. Prices change — check theirs before you decide, and tell us if this table is out of date.
| Csper | HeaderHawk | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | None | Free: $0, 3 sites, 10,000 reports a month, 15-day retention, no card |
| Cheapest paid plan | Basic, $50/month (annual billing saves 10%) | Team, $39/month or $390/year |
| Sites on that plan | 3 websites | 10 sites |
| Reports a month | 100,000 reports / month | 100,000 |
| Report retention | 90 day report retention | 30 days |
| Team members | Unlimited users | 10 |
| Trial | 14-day free trial | 30-day Team trial, no credit card |
Checked on 11 September 2026, from csper.io/pricing.
What Csper does better
A comparison that finds no advantage anywhere is the one readers stop trusting. These are the things HeaderHawk does not do.
- It helps write the policy, not just read the reports
- An “Automatic Policy Generator” builds a policy from the reports already collected, and “Policy Evaluations / Feedback” scores a policy against best practice. HeaderHawk deliberately does neither: it tells you what your policy blocked and leaves authoring to you.
- Export and a full API
- Their feature table lists exporting the exact reports received as JSON, and full API access to projects, policies and reports. HeaderHawk has no export and no read API, so everything you learn there you read in the dashboard.
- Spike alerting
- A “Report Spike Alert” fires when report volume jumps, which is the classic sign of a misconfigured rollout. HeaderHawk has no spike detection and no thresholds to configure — its alerting scores a window's browser diversity and nothing else.
- More retention and more people at the entry price
- 90-day retention and unlimited users on the $50 Basic plan, against 30 days and 10 users on HeaderHawk's $39 Team plan. If your evidence trail matters more than your bill, that is the better shape.
- A reserved endpoint subdomain
- Csper lets you reserve your own csper.io subdomain for the reporting endpoint. HeaderHawk issues an endpoint URL per site and offers no custom domain for it.
Where HeaderHawk is stronger
Each of these is something the product does today, not something on a roadmap.
- You can start without paying anything
- Csper's entry is a 14-day trial and then $50 a month. HeaderHawk's Free plan runs 3 sites and 10,000 reports a month indefinitely, which is enough to finish a small rollout without a purchase order.
- The first paid step is $39, and it covers 10 sites
- 10 sites and the same 100,000 reports a month, against Csper's three websites. Beyond that their next tier is $450 a month for 20 websites; HeaderHawk's Professional plan is $99 for 25.
- Noise is classified and then acted on
- Both products classify reports by type. HeaderHawk applies that classification in the alert path: a window whose reports are all extension, data:/about:/blob: or bot traffic scores as suppressed and pages nobody, while the reports themselves stay in the dashboard.
- Script integrity hashes alongside violations
- With 'report-sha256' in your policy, Chromium reports the hash of every script it fetched and executed, and those land in a Scripts view by origin and script from Team upwards, with the per-page breakdown from Professional. It is a sample rather than a census — see the caveats on our PCI page — and it is the evidence PCI DSS 4.0 asks for on payment pages.
Which one to pick
Pick Csper if…
- You want the tool to propose the policy. Generating one from collected reports and grading it against best practice is genuinely useful work that HeaderHawk does not do.
- You need 90 days of history, unlimited seats, a JSON export or an API at the entry price — all four are theirs and none are ours.
- A spike alert matters to you. Catching a rollout that has gone wrong by volume is a different signal from catching a real violation by browser diversity, and only one of these two products has it.
Try HeaderHawk if…
- The budget starts at nothing, or three websites is not enough at the price you can get approved.
- You want script integrity hashes next to your violations, or noise suppression on the alert path is worth more to you than policy generation.
HeaderHawk has no data export, no API for reading your data, no HTTP response-header monitoring, no configurable alert thresholds and no spike detection. If any of those is a requirement, the comparison above is already decided.
Other comparisons
- HeaderHawk vs Report URIThe incumbent, now sold as a client-side security platform. Far more product; a much higher floor.
- HeaderHawk vs URIportsThe closest on price and the broadest in scope. CSP is one of many report types for them, and the whole product here.
- HeaderHawk vs CentralCSPStrong on policy building and PCI tooling: a builder, scanner, evaluator and Chrome extension around the endpoint.
- HeaderHawk vs building it yourselfThe real default: a Lambda writing to S3. The endpoint is an afternoon; everything after it is the product.
Try it against your own reports
Point a report-only policy at HeaderHawk and see what a week of real traffic looks like. No comparison table settles that.