

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management compete in cybersecurity, specifically in endpoint protection and vulnerability management. ThreatLocker appears to have the upper hand due to its tools consolidation and granular control, while Microsoft Defender benefits from strong integration with the Microsoft ecosystem.
Features: ThreatLocker excels in allowlisting, ensuring only trusted applications run by default. It provides robust application and elevation control, supplemented by real-time sandbox testing. Its tools streamline deployment and manageability with learning mode and efficient onboarding. Microsoft Defender integrates seamlessly with the Microsoft stack, focusing on threat assessments and remediation suggestions, providing continuous vulnerability monitoring and prioritization.
Room for Improvement: ThreatLocker could improve with more identity and multi-factor authentication modules, more streamlined learning mode, and better integration for browsers and mobile devices. Users also suggest improvements in web and SIEM controls. Microsoft Defender could enhance its portal refresh rate, improve vulnerability identification, and offer more user-friendly documentation. Further integration across varied environments is advised.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ThreatLocker stands out with stellar customer support, praised for immediate and knowledgeable assistance via various channels. It offers deployment flexibility across cloud and on-prem environments. Microsoft Defender is straightforward to deploy within Microsoft environments but may face challenges elsewhere, lacking the same level of user-acclaimed support as ThreatLocker.
Pricing and ROI: ThreatLocker is considered cost-effective with operational savings and buyer preparation through bundled onboarding. Its pricing suits scaling needs and appeals to companies focusing on security tool consolidation. Microsoft Defender is seen as costly despite its Microsoft suite integration. ThreatLocker's ROI is clear through reduced costs and strong support, whereas Microsoft Defender's pricing is justified by its extensive feature set in the Microsoft ecosystem.
Organizations typically do not rely solely on Microsoft products to avoid putting all eggs in one basket, which presents a challenge for maximizing ROI.
As a Microsoft partner, we receive significant discounts, making the solution affordable for us.
If something were to happen without ThreatLocker, the cost would be huge, and thus, having it is definitely worth it.
Based on what we use ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for with the same functionalities and packaging, it was around 13 or 14 hours.
We have the MDR package as well, and just knowing someone is watching those endpoints at 3:00 a.m. is a lifesaver that you cannot put a dollar figure on.
They are sometimes responsive, however, often issues cannot be reproduced on their end, making it challenging.
The support we receive from Microsoft is declining, and for example, after taking advanced support, we have not received satisfactory answers.
They are familiar with Microsoft products but are not direct Microsoft staff, which is an area needing improvement.
They have been very responsive, helpful, and knowledgeable.
I would rate their customer support a ten out of ten.
Their support is world-class.
The integration is straightforward for those who understand it, though documentation needs improvement.
It is scalable; I evaluated the product and decided to use Defender on over 700 of our company servers.
I started off with just the servers, and within a month and a half, I set up the entire company with ThreatLocker.
It seems to primarily operate on the endpoints rather than at a central location pushing out policies.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform scales very smoothly with our growing needs.
There are compatibility issues occasionally arising with false positives when other security tools are not whitelisted in Microsoft Defender.
It is very resource-intensive, consuming a lot of memory and CPU.
If Microsoft experiences downtime, this solution goes down as it is a SaaS-based solution where we have no control.
For five years, we have not had a problem.
Once deployed, it downloads the policies locally, so even if the computer doesn't have internet, it doesn't matter.
It has been very stable, reliable, and accessible.
This scoring should be for specific industries as well. If I belong to the healthcare industry using Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, it should provide me with a risk score and show how I fare against the risk score of my industry.
A vulnerability I patch within 15 minutes takes 24 additional hours for an update.
The product is not stable; it often uses excessive memory and CPU, which makes it slow.
Controlling the cloud environment, not just endpoints, is crucial.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform could improve by being a little more hands-off, perhaps by having a team inside ThreatLocker that does all the vetting of patches; having one person hired by ThreatLocker to check out patches means that a million other industries using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform do not have to vet the same patch, ultimately saving time and money around the world.
This feedback would help us understand what is learned in real-time, especially during a one-hour learning mode setup, ensuring we remain aware of potentially unnecessary learned items.
Overall, every organization wishes for cheaper options, but we look at the security side as well, so we are good for now.
For non-partners, however, the cost could be seen as higher, between seven to ten.
The pricing is reasonable, and it's included in the whole Microsoft E5 bundle, so it's all-inclusive.
After conversations with other partners, it became clear we underpriced it initially, which caused most of our issues.
We are moving towards the Unified solution, where they basically bundle everything together, providing us better stability with the ability to bring in new product offerings without having to go back to the customer and say, 'This is going to cost you.'
Money is saved because it is not costly, and I would suggest it for other companies.
The main advantage of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is that it can locate and prevent most threats even when the endpoints are not connected to the corporate network, as long as the internet is available.
The feature for customizing to region-specific and domain-specific requirements in healthcare is particularly beneficial.
The most valuable aspect is the kind of assessment results I get, and the recommendations provided in Microsoft products really help in taking care of the resources.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform's ability to block access to unauthorized applications has been excellent.
It protects our customers.
The major benefit is fewer breaches overall, as nothing can be run without prior approval. This helps my company protect its data and secure itself effectively.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform | 2.6% |
| Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management | 2.2% |
| Other | 95.2% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 9 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 2 |
| Large Enterprise | 6 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 51 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 8 |
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management enables organizations to identify vulnerabilities, manage patches, and fortify threat detection. It offers endpoint assessments, cloud incident management, and dynamic security through Microsoft's Security Scorecard integration.
Organizations leverage Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management for advanced threat detection and response. It provides robust tools for vulnerability assessment and cloud incident management, integrated with Microsoft's Security Scorecard to enhance dynamic security profiling. Key features include automatic patch deployment, security configuration management, and seamless integration with Microsoft platforms, benefiting both on-prem and cloud environments. Organizations can track vulnerabilities with severity-based reports, helping manage outdated software and minimizing threat exposure.
What are the key features of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management?In healthcare, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management helps manage compliance with health regulations, while in finance, it aids in securing sensitive data from cyber threats. Manufacturing sectors benefit from its patch management, keeping operational technology systems less vulnerable to disruptions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform employs a deny-by-default approach to enhance security and operational efficiency, focusing on precise application control and streamlined access management without administrative rights.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform offers advanced application control, allowlisting, and elevation control, significantly reducing unauthorized software activities. Its granular controls improve security, while ringfencing enhances application monitoring. Elevation requests allow users to gain administrative access without IT intervention. The platform's ease of policy management and real-time threat visibility contribute to reduced help desk tickets and operational costs, ensuring protection against ransomware and unauthorized applications.
What are the key features of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform?Organizations often deploy ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform for ensuring endpoint security in industries requiring stringent application control and administrative access management. Its functionalities are critical for managing Shadow IT, creating policies, and overseeing software installation approvals. Common usage spans sectors demanding robust security and compliance, such as finance and healthcare, where maintaining high security and efficiency is crucial.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.