Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 29, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cybereason Endpoint Detecti...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
35th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (24th)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust End...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
7th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (5th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (6th), Application Control (1st), ZTNA (3rd), Ransomware Protection (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is 0.8%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

AtulChaurasia - PeerSpot reviewer
Scalable platform with intuitive features for detecting malicious files
The initial setup process is straightforward. We have to install the agent, create a package, and deploy it on servers. It has a prebuilt console managed by the cloud team of Cybereason. We don't have to worry about the console and concentrate on endpoint implementation. It takes ten days to deploy it on 10,000 devices.
Johnathan Bodily - PeerSpot reviewer
Ensures ransomware protection and reduces phishing chaos
The application control has been great so far, and while I am still exploring the network access controls, I unfortunately don't have access to one module I would love to have due to licensing restrictions. It's easy to use in regard to reducing attack surfaces. For me, it's a piece of cake. We can have something approved within 30 seconds, thanks to the mobile app. We haven't eliminated security solutions. We just add to it, and ThreatLocker has been a great addition. We also have Kaseya and ThreatLocker as a supplement to that. It's useful. They have overlap, and we look at the overlap as a good thing. It's helped your organization save on operational costs or expenses by ensuring that many fewer hours are spent dealing with ransomware nonsense. I cannot count the amount of hours that I personally have not had to put in to recovering an environment from a ransomware event. The last big one took us about three weeks to completely recover from. Since we've grouped ThreatLocker in, the management of that whole setup has gone down to just daily help desk tasks and general server maintenance instead of having the whole system on fire. There are probably thousands of hours of saved time between our teams. It's been great so far. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform's ability to block access to unauthorized applications is great. It's my biggest protection, the blocked applications. In a lot of cases, you go to install something yourself that you need for management, and it comes in and says, nope. And then I have to log into the portal and approve it. I get our other guys saying, hey, why are you trying to approve something? Any of the tools that I'm using on a day-to-day basis that haven't been in the environment during the whole learning mode initially, I could go through and set extensions and all that. So, while it's a headache on that end, the amount of saved time I can't even count. It is a little frustrating on my end since I like to go as quickly as I possibly can, and it slows me down. However, that's a really good thing. Depending on the site, it can save a lot of time and cut down headaches. It's likely saved a week's worth of time. It's cut down the amount of sever help desk tickets. Those have become minimal.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the capability of the command used by the machine so that we see the kind of performance that is running."
"Their EDR solution, the ability to mitigate issues through their command line, is probably the best feature that we've had. We use that all the time. It's very useful for doing investigations."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"I haven't had any issues with the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It gives all the information in a clear response."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"We didn't have the visibility that we now have. It has increased our visibility by a lot. So, we put a lot more time into really looking at our environment and what is happening throughout our different networks. It has increased our visibility by around fivefold."
"Being able to protect and trust nothing by default, known as zero trust, is the most important feature to me."
"Overall, I would rate ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform a ten out of ten."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform provides no-sweat security that we can easily deploy. We do not worry about our habitual clickers because we receive an alert if they try to do something, and we know ThreatLocker has already taken care of it."
"Overall, I would rate ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform a ten out of ten."
"Every single feature has been invaluable."
"Customer service is good. The Cyber Hero program ensures there is always someone available to help."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped reduce the incidents of clients getting exploits or ransomware put on their devices by 110 times."
"I would rate it a ten out of ten."
 

Cons

"They need to improve their technical support services."
"While the product is very good, there are still some areas for improvement. The initial triage area could be a bit simpler. They get into the weeds real fast; it gets very detailed very fast. I am still looking for an easier triage layer on top with the ability to dig deeper."
"Cybereason does not have sandbox functionality."
"There can be problems with the EDI."
"It initially took some time to deploy."
"The product's reporting isn't great."
"I feel that the product lacks reporting features and needs improvement."
"Ad hoc higher-level reporting to senior management can be improved or can be implemented. That's definitely an area of improvement that they need to focus on."
"It has not helped reduce our help desk tickets. We are still in learning mode, and after we are fully knowledgeable, we will be able to see some ticket reductions."
"One area I see for improvement is in the visibility of support tickets within the ThreatLocker ticketing system."
"Scalability is challenging, not due to the platform. Scaling ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform usage requires dedicated resources for maintenance."
"We identified several areas that we would like to see improved."
"I have encountered some problems with stability, however, they are resolved quickly."
"It would be beneficial if it became more recognized in the EU to gain respect."
"I find that the learning mode is too accessible. Technicians sometimes default to it instead of manually building policy controls."
"It has not reduced helpdesk tickets. It has probably increased them by blocking applications and doing its job, resulting in people raising more tickets to know why they cannot use certain things."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"In terms of pricing, it's a good solution."
"Though it is not the cheapest solution but it fits our budget. We pay an annual licensing fee."
"We considered a few other solutions. Some were ridiculously overpriced, while others didn't have solutions for Mac endpoints. That was a deal-breaker because most of our organization is on Mac. It came down to two vendors: Cybereason and another. They had similar pitches and almost identical approaches, but in the end, Cybereason gave us the best value for our money."
"I had to go through a third-party to purchase it, which I wasn't really pleased about."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing an eight."
"I do not have experience with the licensing of the product."
"In terms of cost, this is a good choice for our needs."
"This product is somewhat expensive and should be cheaper."
"We have not had any real issues with the pricing. As they have added more features, due to the way our contracts are structured with our customers, we have had to hold off on adopting the new features because they do add costs."
"I do not deal with pricing, but I assume it is cost-effective for us. We choose a solution based on functionality and affordability."
"Others say ThreatLocker is too expensive, and I tell them they're dreaming. It's well-priced for what it does."
"ThreatLocker's pricing seems justifiable."
"Considering what this product does, ThreatLocker is very well-priced, if not too nicely priced for the customer."
"We have encountered a few challenges regarding pricing, contract renewals, and additions. As we explored adding features like Cyber Hero, it proved to be an increased expense for our clients. This was primarily a mistake on our part due to how we initially priced it to clients."
"Its price is fair. They have added some additional things to it beyond allowlisting. They are up-charging for them, but in terms of the value we get and the way it impacts us, we get a bang for our buck with ThreatLocker than a lot of our other security tools."
"So far, it has been great. I have no complaints. Of course, everybody wishes it was cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
34%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
Comparison with other products showed it be cheaper than some larger competitors. Set up cost for us were cheaper as we already had users experienced with the product in other business units. Initi...
What is your primary use case for Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response?
We use it to improve detection in the whole industrial sector. We are a big energy company. Across multiple endpoints, we deploy the EDR to secure all, improve detection, and also attempt to automa...
What do you like most about ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
The interface is clean and well-organized, making it simple to navigate and find what we need.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
Pricing, setup costs, and licensing have been pretty accessible and manageable. It was not too expensive to get started, especially at a small scale for a smaller MSP. It is very accessible, easy t...
What needs improvement with ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
For the space that it's in, it's already there. I don't know of another product that compares to its level. Even recently, with the addition of the detect module is a very nice add-on to the packet...
 

Also Known As

Cybereason EDR, Cybereason Deep Detect & Respond
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lockheed Martin, Spark Capital, DocuSign, Softbank Capital
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.