We Built a Page That Fights Back. Here’s Why.

C/side wrote a blog post about us. We read it. Our co-founders had thoughts.

Recently, c/side published a blog post comparing themselves to Reflectiz. It made some bold claims. It called us a “snapshot tool for a compliance checkbox.” It said we’re blind to real-world attacks. It linked to pre-seeded AI prompts designed to return one answer.

We could have ignored it.

Instead, our co-founders Idan Cohen and Ysrael Gurt sat down and wrote a response — not a marketing piece, but a technical record. Verified review data. Documented architecture. Named customer deployments. Specific vulnerabilities in c/side’s in-browser approach identified through our own analysis, including a Shadow DOM bypass and an incomplete keylogging implementation covering only an obsolete IE-era method.

Where c/side has a genuine edge, they say so. Where c/side’s published comparison contains factual errors or misrepresentations, they correct them — with specifics.

Read the full technical comparison →

Some of what the article covers:

• Why c/side’s code running inside the browser is a structural problem, not just a design trade-off
• What the Brave browser incident actually revealed about proxy-dependent security models
• Why the G2 review count matters more than the star rating
• What 29 named enterprise practitioners said about Reflectiz — and why 11 anonymous reviews don’t compare
• How Reflectiz blocks malicious scripts on demand, without persistent code

The full article is co-authored by our founders and draws on the complete customer record, our working relationship with Integrity360, and the documented outcomes from customers like Village Roadshow, Broadway Gaming Group, Castore, and Apexx Global.

We encourage you to read c/side’s page too. Then read ours. The data is publicly available, and we’re confident it speaks for itself.

Read the full technical comparison →