Vendor comparison

ShieldReplay vs session replay and client-side WAF tools

Comparison matrix

How ShieldReplay compares to session replay (LogRocket) and client-side WAF tools for modern web apps.

CapabilityLogRocket (typical)ShieldReplay
Session replayYesYes
Developer timeline (network, console)YesYes
User identificationYesOpt-in identify()
Client-side WAF + probesLimitedBuilt-in
Security incidents on replayAdd-onsYes
Workflow automationsIntegration marketplaceAutomation Studio + Integrations
Slack / Jira / DatadogMarketplace connectorsPer-site connect + automation actions
Self-hosted / private cloudEnterprise contractDocker Compose
SSO / SAMLSAML + OIDCOIDC (Okta, Azure AD, Google) — Org admin
Org-wide team adminTeams & rolesOrganization + invites
Origin-locked ingestDomain allowlistAllowed domains list
Usage meteringSessionsSessions & events
Scrollmaps & scroll depthYesProduct analytics
User path / flow analysisYesSankey-style flows
Advanced session filters & cohorts50+ filtersSaved cohorts
No-code metric definitionsInspect toolReplay + CSS selectors
Error grouping dashboardYesErrors tab
Performance & network analyticsWaterfall + vitalsReplay + Perf tab
NPS / VoC → session linkIntegrationsShieldReplay.feedback()
Shadow DOM / iframe / canvas captureMature recorderSame-origin iframe inline, shadow flatten, canvas snapshots

Where ShieldReplay is stronger

  • You need security signals and UX friction in one investigator workflow.
  • You want automated response (webhooks, ticketing) tied to replay context.
  • AppSec wants probe visibility without losing product analytics.
  • You need explicit allowed-origin enforcement so a stolen site token cannot ingest from arbitrary domains.