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

Ruckus Cloudpath 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

Ruckus Cloudpath
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatLocker Zero Trust End...
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
5th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (7th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (5th), Application Control (1st), ZTNA (3rd), Ransomware Protection (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Ruckus Cloudpath is 1.9%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

Mohammad Abdur Rahim Sarker - PeerSpot reviewer
Long-range capabilities and robust security have empowered seamless and reliable connections in diverse environments
Our primary use case for Ruckus Cloudpath is within the hospitality industry and educational institutions, such as large hotels and universities. We implemented the solution in the infrastructure to provide services to customers and students. Specifically, we use it in premises like student labs…
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 solution has good features for authentication, policies, and allowing users to self-provision devices for network access via their logins."
"The ease of use is great, and the automation wizards can do a lot."
"The tool's most valuable features include the phenomenal functionality of DPSK. The ease of use, particularly when it is correctly set up, is remarkably simple. Tracking users is straightforward and dynamic. This allows us to identify where a user might encounter issues within the process."
"Ruckus technical support is very good and helpful whenever we need them."
"The wireless devices are used to control access, transmit messages, and integrate with the main system."
"The solution is easy to use, well designed, robust, and has good traffic capacity."
"Ruckus Cloudpath is very stable."
"I find the solution to be very rich in features."
"Application control, ring-fencing, and storage control are the most important features, followed closely by elevation."
"The most valuable feature is selective elevation, which allows elevating an individual process to admin privilege without granting admin privilege to that user, which has been by far the most useful feature outside of the overall solution itself."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform's ability to block access to unauthorized applications has been excellent."
"A few years back, we had an attack on one of our biggest clients."
"ThreatLocker Allowlisting has all of these features integrated into one console, making it effective."
"We are seeing a return on investment, especially with our managers and customers."
"ThreatLocker stands out because they understand application whitelisting and elevation controls deeply, addressing real issues effectively."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped us protect our environments and have more meaningful requests for access as well as meaningful logging for response."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in deployment."
"There is room for improvement in deployment. I would like to see more effort put into troubleshooting."
"Ruckus Cloudpath needs more API features and enhanced automation capabilities."
"The setup had a few initial small problems, however, everything was resolved and it is very good now."
"I believe the solution is missing some great features which are present in other solutions like Aruba, UiPath, and Cisco ISE."
"The tool needs to support multi-vendor environments. Currently, my experience with it has been primarily within Ruckus environments. However, I haven't explored it for multi-vendor scenarios. It would be great to see newer builds that are multi-vendor capable of full integration."
"The scalability could be better."
"The solution could improve by adding more detailed information that customers have available on the dashboards."
"The Cyber Hero certification exam could use a bit of love, but overall, I have been very satisfied with the platform."
"We identified several areas that we would like to see improved."
"Scalability is challenging, not due to the platform. Scaling ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform usage requires dedicated resources for maintenance."
"I have no complaints, but a little bit more Mac support would be great."
"ThreatLocker Allowlisting needs to improve its user interface and overall workflow."
"When I first came on board, it was trickier to learn."
"Some reporting areas need improvement. We need to generate more reports."
"ThreatLocker could offer more flexible training, like online or offline classes after hours. The fact that they even provide weekly training makes it seem silly to suggest, but some people can't do it during the day, so they want to train after work. They could also start a podcast about issues they see frequently and what requires attention. A podcast would be helpful to keep us all apprised about what's going on and/or offline training for those people who can't train during the week."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost was somewhere around $700 for the access points, however, there was a discount."
"The licensing of the solution is user-based and the price is good."
"The pricing is a little bit high."
"I would rate the tool's pricing as a seven on a scale of one to ten. Compared to others, it's not overly expensive, but it does come with a cost. Since it's a licensed-based product, it can become expensive, especially if there is a need for additional licenses."
"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 pricing is fair and there is no hard sell."
"I do not deal with pricing, but I assume it is cost-effective for us. We choose a solution based on functionality and affordability."
"I believe ThreatLocker's pricing model is fair and flexible, allowing account managers to offer customized deals based on our specific needs."
"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."
"Although the pricing seems good, there have been inconsistencies in contract negotiations."
"Considering what this product does, ThreatLocker is very well-priced, if not too nicely priced for the customer."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
18%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Media Company
6%
Computer Software Company
31%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Ruckus Cloudpath?
The tool's most valuable features include the phenomenal functionality of DPSK. The ease of use, particularly when it is correctly set up, is remarkably simple. Tracking users is straightforward an...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ruckus Cloudpath?
The pricing of Ruckus Cloudpath is on the expensive side. I would rate the pricing as an eight out of ten, with ten being very expensive.
What needs improvement with Ruckus Cloudpath?
The user interface of Ruckus Cloudpath needs some enhancement along with the support process, requiring more qualified engineers to support this product. The pricing of Ruckus Cloudpath needs a lit...
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

No data available
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Ruckus Cloudpath vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.