Comparison

HeaderHawk vs Report URI

Report URI is the best-known service in this category, and for most of the last decade it was the answer to “where do I send my CSP reports?”. It is still a good answer. It is also no longer quite the same product: its homepage sells a client-side security platform, and its cheapest plan covers one domain at $54.99 a month.

HeaderHawk does the narrower thing. It takes violation reports, groups them so a thousand hits read as one problem, opens each group onto the file, line and script sample the browser sent, and holds extension and bot noise back from alerts. It starts free, and the first paid step is $39 a month.

If you are choosing between them, the honest summary is that Report URI has far more product and HeaderHawk has a far lower floor. The rest of this page is the detail behind that sentence.

Side by side

Every figure in the Report URI 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 Prices change — check theirs before you decide, and tell us if this table is out of date.

	Report URI	HeaderHawk
Free plan	None	Free: $0, 3 sites, 10,000 reports a month, 15-day retention, no card
Cheapest paid plan	Starter, $54.99/mo (billed $659.88/yr)	Team, $39/month or $390/year
Sites on that plan	1 domain protected	10 sites
Reports a month	100,000 events	100,000
Report retention	15 days	30 days
Team members	Team access starts on Professional, $109.99/mo	10
Trial	30-day free trial, no credit card	30-day Team trial, no credit card

Checked on 11 September 2026, from report-uri.com/pricing.

What Report URI does better

A comparison that finds no advantage anywhere is the one readers stop trusting. These are the things HeaderHawk does not do.

It collects far more than CSP: Report URI publishes feature pages for Network Error Logging, certificate transparency monitoring, DMARC monitoring, SMTP TLS reports, COOP and COEP reports, permissions policy, and deprecation, intervention and crash reports. HeaderHawk collects CSP violation reports and script integrity hashes. That is the whole list.
Client-side security, not just reporting: Script Watch, an Integrity Suite, Data Watch, Frame Watch, Policy Watch, a script vault and threat intelligence with indicator-of-compromise detection are all named plan features. HeaderHawk has none of them: it tells you what your policy blocked and which script hashes browsers executed, and stops there.
Data export, an API and webhooks: Their plan table lists data export on every plan, and API access and webhooks from Business upwards. HeaderHawk has no data export of any kind and no public API for reading your data; it has webhook alerting, but nothing to pull history from.
The controls a security team will ask for: SAML single sign-on, role-based access control, an IP allow list, a dedicated server instance, geographic hosting and an SLA are all on their plan table. HeaderHawk lists SSO as coming soon, has none of the rest, and offers no choice of hosting region.
A decade of public work behind it: Case studies, original research on how large sites deploy CSP, and a set of free tools — a CSP builder, an analyser, hash generators, a permissions policy builder. That library is why most CSP tutorials point at them, and it is not something a new product can claim.

Where HeaderHawk is stronger

Each of these is something the product does today, not something on a roadmap.

A free plan, not a free trial: 3 sites, 10,000 reports a month and 15 days of history, with no card and no clock. Report URI's trial is 30 days and then a decision. If your CSP rollout takes a quarter — most do — only one of those two shapes fits it.
10 sites before you reach their first one: Report URI's $54.99 Starter covers one domain. HeaderHawk's $39 Team plan covers 10, with the same 100,000 reports a month, 30-day retention against their 15, and 10 team members where Starter has no team access at all.
Grouping that opens onto the actual line of code: Reports group by directive, blocked source and page, and any row opens onto the pages it affects and the individual reports behind it — including the source file, line, column and the script sample the browser sent when the policy carries 'report-sample'.
Extension and bot noise separated from real violations: Reports whose blocked URI is a browser-extension scheme, a data:, about: or blob: URL, or whose user agent matches a known bot are classified as noise and never raise an alert. They stay visible in the dashboard, because a violation you cannot see is not the same as one you chose to ignore.

Which one to pick

Pick Report URI if…

You need more than CSP reports. If Network Error Logging, certificate transparency, DMARC or crash reports are on your list, this comparison is over — HeaderHawk collects none of them.
Your requirement is client-side security rather than policy debugging: script inventories with threat intelligence, an integrity suite, and the compliance framing built around them.
Procurement needs SAML, role-based access control, an SLA, dedicated infrastructure or a named region — or you need to export your data, which HeaderHawk cannot do at all.

Try HeaderHawk if…

You have more than one domain and a budget that does not start in the hundreds. 10 sites at $39 is the case; one domain at $54.99 is the alternative.
The job in front of you is reading violations: getting a report-only policy to quiet, finding which page and which line a blocked source comes from, and not being paged by somebody's ad blocker.

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

All comparisons

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.