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

Safe-T Secure Application Access vs ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 5, 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

Safe-T Secure Application A...
Ranking in ZTNA
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (45th), Access Management (28th)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust End...
Ranking in ZTNA
4th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (5th), Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (7th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (6th), Application Control (1st), Ransomware Protection (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the ZTNA category, the mindshare of Safe-T Secure Application Access is 1.0%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is 2.3%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ZTNA Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform2.3%
Safe-T Secure Application Access1.0%
Other96.7%
ZTNA
 

Featured Reviews

it_user787671 - PeerSpot reviewer
Needs to be easier to configure and to display logs more simply
We use only it for scanning files for viruses. That's the only feature we use in this product It needs to be easier to configure, it should be something that's working well with other sources. It should be something that allows me to see the logs simply. One to three years. Sometimes it doesn't…
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

"If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
"The great thing is that if you get a malicious email and you try to run something, ThreatLocker is not going to let it do anything. It is not going to let anything infect your network."
"Feature-wise, the learning mode and the fact that it's blocking everything are the most valuable. I don't see why more companies don't use the type of product."
"ThreatLocker’s support has been second to none."
"I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"ThreatLocker stands out because they understand application whitelisting and elevation controls deeply, addressing real issues effectively."
"What sets ThreatLocker apart from competitors offering similar solutions is ringfencing. The ringfencing controls, along with the application elevation features, keep it out of the user's line of sight while still protecting them."
"Allowlisting, in general, is valuable because it allows us to have a lot more granular control over what is executed on a desktop. We are also able to ringfence known vectors of attack through Office applications, email, browsers, etc."
"While it can be frustrating at times, we appreciate the low-level security provided by the application whitelist."
 

Cons

"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"It would be beneficial if it became more recognized in the EU to gain respect."
"There could be options for handling a bulk amount of machines simultaneously."
"It's very annoying to uninstall. You have to go into the online control panel and disable tampering for a device before it'll let you uninstall it without complaining really loudly."
"Adding applications to the allowlist can sometimes feel overwhelming."
"One of the things I would really like is the ability to create custom groups and assign machines to them."
"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."
"I have no complaints, but a little bit more Mac support would be great."
"I find that the learning mode is too accessible. Technicians sometimes default to it instead of manually building policy controls."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Considering what this product does, ThreatLocker is very well-priced, if not too nicely priced for the customer."
"Although the pricing seems good, there have been inconsistencies in contract negotiations."
"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."
"I do not know about the licensing and price as it comes bundled from our MSP. However, it seems fairly reasonable for us, which is why we chose it."
"The pricing is reasonable and normal. I do not have any problems with the cost."
"I believe ThreatLocker's pricing model is fair and flexible, allowing account managers to offer customized deals based on our specific needs."
"I can't complain. Cheaper would always be nice, but I think it's reasonable compared to other software in the cybersecurity market."
"The price is very reasonable, and we have been able to integrate ThreatLocker with all of our clients."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
28%
Retailer
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

Safe-T SDA, Safe-T, Safe-T Software-Defined Access
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Government of Israel, eviCore Healthcore, Glen Imaging, Sarin, LBG, Rollomatic, Boegli-Gravures SA, Banque Heritage, Groupe Minoteries, Temenos, ZEK, RLM Finsbury, Harel Insurance, Meitav Dash
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Safe-T Secure Application Access vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.