No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CylanceENDPOINT vs ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 17, 2026

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

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (6th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (5th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
CylanceENDPOINT
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
61st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Pla...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
6th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (4th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (5th), Application Control (1st), ZTNA as a Service (4th), ZTNA (5th), Ransomware Protection (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.6%, down from 3.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CylanceENDPOINT is 0.3%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is 1.3%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.6%
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform1.3%
CylanceENDPOINT0.3%
Other94.8%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
Raphael Haroun  Ikyagh - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Administrator at Letshego
Stable, good for malware detection and prevention
I use it for general endpoint protection and the usual stuff like malware detection and prevention It secures my environment.  One thing that could be easier is initiating scans. If I want to scan an extra drive, it should be more straightforward. It's a bit clunky. I have been using it for…
Santo Joy - PeerSpot reviewer
Head Of Cyber Security at a outsourcing company with 201-500 employees
Security controls have been strengthened with granular application, ringfencing, and access policies
The features of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform that I like the most are the Ringfencing, elevation control, storage control, and application whitelisting functionality. For examples of how these features benefit my company, we were looking for a solution across various vendors to actually implement application whitelisting controls. ThreatLocker's agent, which is very lightweight and does not use much CPU or RAM, helped us achieve that solution. Ringfencing was an add-on that ticked off a lot of Australian framework security controls, which is the reason we chose it. My impression of the allowlisting feature in terms of managing which software, scripts, and libraries run on my devices is that ThreatLocker's community page has a lot of information around this, which is very helpful. Not only that, the Cyber Hero support that ThreatLocker provides gives us insights and best practices, helping us achieve that solution and guiding us to the right platform. The impact of Ringfencing on controlling the behavior of approved applications has been a big winner for us because it is something that many other platforms do not provide as a functionality. Having that allowed us to identify what applications talk to each other, which is something that many other platforms do not do. The network control feature impacts my ability to manage network traffic across my endpoints and servers. We have not used this widely across all our partners, but wherever required, we use it. It has been an easy solution for those customers to get that control implemented. The elevation feature's role in facilitating just-in-time administrative access for approved applications shows that elevation control helps in many use cases involving remote control platforms, door usage, and security system platforms that require local admins. There are many solutions that provide this functionality, but the licensing cost seems to be expensive, and it also adds another solution into the mix. Rather than doing that, we try to use ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform to achieve that control. Regarding the storage control feature, I have used it. The primary function is USB blocking, which is very widely adopted, and also just locking down and allowing certain users to access certain file locations helps us there. When it comes to enforcing policy-driven access over various storage devices, it depends on the business risk adapted by the companies that we support, but generally the use case is USB and external storage devices where companies know that is a risk, but they do not have appropriate solutions. There are EDR platforms that claim to do this, but ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform does it at an advanced level. My assessment of the efficiency of the real-time threat intelligence and category controls employed by Web Control in blocking malicious and non-compliant sites leads me to think that Web Control is another functionality within ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform that is an add-on on top of the current set. That is another solution that we use based on what is required for the company, but again, that is not widely adapted yet for our partners.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We think that this product will help us grow, as it meets our needs currently and we can grow with it over time."
"The product has an intuitive dashboard."
"The solution allows us to gain remote access without the user's knowledge and take the necessary actions on the device."
"It collects and caches and the knowledge of machine learning from different customers to take to the cloud, it makes it better to use for everybody, it allows for quick learning and updates and can, therefore, offer zero-day malware security, and this sharing of metadata helps make the solution very safe."
"I like the centralized console and the predictive analysis it does of malware. It is very stable and also scalable."
"The protection offered by this product is good, as is the endpoint reporting."
"Provides behavior-based detection which offers many benefits over signature-based detection."
"Stability is a primary factor, and then there's the ease of distribution and policy management."
"It secures my environment."
"Being able to move off of that and utilize ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for our PAM as well has brought our costs down by about thirty percent, ultimately allowing us to reap more of the benefits of the enterprise value."
"While it can be frustrating at times, we appreciate the low-level security provided by the application whitelist."
"Overall, everything is excellent, and everything is well-prepared, from the laptops provided to the overall setup."
"The application whitelisting feature allows us to block and manage approved applications effectively. It ensures that no one can install an application on our systems unless it is approved by me, which is very efficient."
"The pre-built policies and the fact that I get notified when a user requests an application are significant."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform benefits my company by allowing us to be preventative instead of being retroactive or reactive."
"The customer service and technical support of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform are phenomenal, top-notch and top drawer, always willing to help and showing exactly where we need to look to ensure we can have the tools we need for the next time, reducing the need to call into support."
"The unified alerts are useful."
 

Cons

"The solution should enhance the ADR and reporting."
"The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results."
"If you compare it to SentinelOne, which has more functionalities and detection capabilities on an open platform, the pricing on SentinelOne is far more reasonable and cheaper than Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks."
"The solution should offer more dashboards and they should be better customized."
"Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth."
"Managing the product should be easier."
"If they had pulse rate detection, it would be better."
"Product might have some bugs."
"One thing that could be easier is initiating scans."
"I cannot suggest anything that they are not already doing. They should keep adding features as they have been."
"I find that the learning mode is too accessible. Technicians sometimes default to it instead of manually building policy controls."
"There could be options for handling a bulk amount of machines simultaneously."
"ThreatLocker's technical support process could be streamlined by reducing the number of steps required to reach a human agent."
"I assess the efficiency of the real-time threat intelligence and category controls employed by Web Control in blocking malicious and non-compliant sites as fair. There are a few false positives."
"The support could be quicker. There are times when there is a delay in getting a response. This is problematic when immediate attention is needed."
"I have no complaints, but a little bit more Mac support would be great."
"The portal can be a little overwhelming at times from an administration point of view. It displays a lot of information, and it's all useful. However, sometimes there is too much on the screen to sift through, especially if you're trying to diagnose a client's problem with a piece of software. Maybe something has stopped working since they updated it, and we need to see if ThreatLocker is blocking a component of that software."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little high. It is per user per year."
"It's way too expensive, but security is expensive. You pay for your licensing, and then you pay for someone to monitor the stuff."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is quite an expensive solution."
"The price of the solution is high for the license and in general."
"It is present, but when compared to other competitive products, I would say it is not less expensive; however, when all of the other added values are considered, the price is reasonable."
"Our license will require renewal in August, after which the maintenance will continue as usual."
"The solution is expensive. It's pricing is on a yearly-basis."
"It is cost-effective compared to similar solutions. It fits for the small businesses through to the big businesses."
Information not available
"The price is very reasonable, and we have been able to integrate ThreatLocker with all of our clients."
"The price of ThreatLocker Allowlisting is reasonable in the market, but it is not fantastic."
"Others say ThreatLocker is too expensive, and I tell them they're dreaming. It's well-priced for what it does."
"The pricing is pretty fair, considering other solutions. Licensing-wise, it did not take long."
"I find ThreatLocker's pricing to be reasonable for the services it provides."
"The pricing is reasonable and normal. I do not have any problems with the cost."
"ThreatLocker's pricing seems justifiable."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
No data available
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business45
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise48
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business52
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is goo...
What needs improvement with ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform can be improved by providing admin rights that allow us to manag...
What is your primary use case for ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
My main use case for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is to secure the server.A specific example ...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Information Not Available
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Microsoft, SentinelOne and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP). Updated: April 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.