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

Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway vs ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Kaspersky Security for Inte...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
29th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Email Security (27th), Anti-Malware Tools (35th), Secure Email Gateway (SEG) (10th)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Pla...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
5th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (4th), Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (6th), Application Control (1st), ZTNA as a Service (4th), ZTNA (5th), Ransomware Protection (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is 0.1%. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is 2.7%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform2.7%
Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway0.1%
Other97.2%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2736225 - PeerSpot reviewer
Program Manager at a hospitality company with 51-200 employees
Effective threat protection with room for cost and usability improvements
There are some drawbacks that I would mention. To be frank, enterprises always look for cost benefits, so Kaspersky could implement some price benefits. Additionally, regarding know-how, if I am an experienced person it's fine, but when someone novice is working with it, they need information about why certain actions are required. Security is a field that is very vast, and implications are not known to everyone. In future updates, a quick walk-through and know-how features would be beneficial, such as information text at relevant places. This will increase usability. Feature-wise, an impact analysis would be a really good addition.
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

"The most valuable aspect for me is the user-friendly interface."
"I would recommend it to others as it's easy to use."
"The scalability of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is very good."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and operation efficiency."
"Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway has positively impacted our organization by helping us control unwanted attacks and limiting our exposure to risks."
"The password thing is very good, and the overall URL protection."
"The most valuable feature of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is the antivirus."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the antivirus and child protection features."
"The biggest one that we focus on is the application control with ringfencing. That combination is very beneficial."
"Essentially, ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is super easy to use, very informative, and it does everything quickly and easily."
"We are seeing a return on investment, especially with our managers and customers."
"The Zero Trust factor is valuable because it blocks everything. That helps us to stay ahead of bad actors. We do not have to be in recovery mode."
"The customer service is amazing."
"As for the customer service and technical support of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, I would rate them from one to 10 as a 20."
"ThreatLocker provides visibility into user activity and application usage, empowering organizations to define acceptable applications and web browsers."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped our company save on operational costs and expenses significantly."
 

Cons

"The initial setup of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is complex. The full deployment took approximately two weeks."
"When I do a configuration, I do not know what implication it will have downstream."
"In different locations, they're priced differently, but that's mainly marketing rather than the product features."
"I believe the absence of a procedure is the main issue."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the pricing."
"The customer support of the product is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"It might be helpful to have notifications on mobile devices, especially if the same browser profile is used on both mobile and laptop."
"The initial setup of Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway is complex. The full deployment took approximately two weeks."
"I would suggest further developing the Web Control aspect of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform and also having better compatibility with Apple devices and mobile devices."
"I think ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform can be improved with an identity and multi-factor authentication module so that it can help manage situations when you elevate a command prompt to run as an administrator by incorporating its own MFA into that process."
"Training has been our biggest hurdle, and getting people on board or having active integration with modules that maybe we don't have access to would help."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform can be improved by making the installation easier."
"The Cyber Hero certification exam could use a bit of love, but overall, I have been very satisfied with the platform."
"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."
"I have no complaints, but a little bit more Mac support would be great."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform could be improved by being able to consolidate even more with an EDR for deeper scanning as needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"It is expensive."
"Personal computer licenses can be expensive if you were to scale the solution extensively. However, large companies will most likely use Endpoint solutions and not this one."
"The cost is relatively high, and as a licensed product, there are restrictions on the number of users permitted per license."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being very expensive and one being cheap. It's neither too cheap nor too expensive."
"I am okay with the pricing."
"The pricing is fair and there is no hard sell."
"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."
"The price of ThreatLocker Allowlisting is reasonable in the market, but it is not fantastic."
"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."
"So far, it has been great. I have no complaints. Of course, everybody wishes it was cheaper."
"ThreatLocker's pricing seems justifiable."
"I find ThreatLocker's pricing to be reasonable for the services it provides."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Computer Software Company
16%
Pharma/Biotech Company
11%
University
8%
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 Business6
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business51
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway?
Regarding pricing, I'll be exactly on the brink, neither for it nor against it because being a small company, it's a slightly pricey solution. However, considering the advantages they bring, we are...
What is your primary use case for Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway?
We work with a cloud solution. The product that we use is developed as a SaaS model. In this case, we work with AWS as our cloud provider. We use a public cloud. The tool is good, but they need to ...
What advice do you have for others considering Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway?
That's a very generic feedback. I would not have much information about threat intelligence metrics through Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway because I've not been monitoring it for quite som...
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 good because it has a nominal price.I would say ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Pr...
What needs improvement with ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform can be improved by providing admin rights that allow us to manage it from the server by providing some token IDs or any kind of OTP if someone h...
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 of how I use ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform to secure my s...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Tael, Insolar, Goods.ru, Republic of Serbia
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Kaspersky Security for Internet Gateway vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.