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

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform vs Twingate comparison

 

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

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Pla...
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
4th
Ranking in ZTNA as a Service
5th
Ranking in ZTNA
5th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (5th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (4th), Application Control (1st), Ransomware Protection (1st)
Twingate
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
12th
Ranking in ZTNA as a Service
18th
Ranking in ZTNA
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (11th), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (15th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is 2.3%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Twingate is 1.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform2.3%
Twingate1.8%
Other95.9%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Joey Benamy - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Cyber Liability Engineer at OncoLens
Helps reduce access-related support tickets, is quick to deploy, and streamlines onboarding
We were able to add Twingate into our infrastructure without having to change our infrastructure or how people work. We reaped the benefits of Twingate immediately because it replaced an alternative solution with a lot of overhead. Twingate helped reduce access-related support tickets by 80 percent. Twingate streamlines onboarding for our company, especially for the engineering team, by automating resource access through directory integrations. New employees generally require no manual configuration within Twingate, saving us significant time and effort. The resiliency is directly proportional to the level of control we exert over its components. We can manage Twingate connectors to support high availability, ensuring the system is as reliable as needed. This flexibility and control enhance Twingate's resiliency capabilities significantly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped reduce the incidents of clients getting exploits or ransomware put on their devices by 110 times."
"The time saved from dealing with ransomware nonsense is invaluable."
"Overall, ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is an ideal solution for any company lacking comparable protection, offering complete visibility into the environment, making it a recommended choice for every organization with computer systems in place."
"I would evaluate the customer service and technical support from ThreatLocker as phenomenal; it's white glove service, better than any other security product we've owned."
"Overall, I would rate ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform a ten out of ten."
"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."
"We use ThreatLocker's Allowlisting to whitelist specific applications and prevent unauthorized software from running."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped my company and my clients' companies save on operational costs and expenses, and I would estimate we have saved at least thirty to forty percent."
"I appreciate Twingate's developer-first approach, particularly its excellent developer tools for deployment and management."
 

Cons

"The user experience could be improved."
"Their product is solid. I have a hard time complaining much about it because when we do find little things, they are usually interface-related or related to things that would be nice to have."
"I have several clients in the last few months that have definitely caused a problem where a domain controller completely destroyed replication once Network Control was put in place, and now our AVD servers in Azure also lose domain trust occasionally and it is intermittent, making it rather hard to prove to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform that they really need to look at when there is a VPN in the middle of a domain controller."
"My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is that it replaced some tools, making it seem more competitive value-wise, but it is the flagship tool doing what it does, which means it is quite expensive."
"The only improvement I would suggest for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is the ability to stop automatic processes when pushing out updates or applying new policies to your computers."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform can be improved by making the installation easier."
"I chose a rating of 9 out of 10 because it is a 10 out of 10 application, but I deducted one point because if there were an AI that could help us create policies, it could be even more useful."
"It has not helped reduce our help desk tickets. We are still in learning mode, and after we are fully knowledgeable, we will be able to see some ticket reductions."
"Twingate's lack of native support for Windows Server is a significant limitation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Although the pricing seems good, there have been inconsistencies in contract negotiations."
"The pricing is reasonable and normal. I do not have any problems with the cost."
"The pricing is pretty fair, considering other solutions. Licensing-wise, it did not take long."
"I can't complain. Cheaper would always be nice, but I think it's reasonable compared to other software in the cybersecurity market."
"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."
"I find ThreatLocker's pricing to be reasonable for the services it provides."
"The price is very reasonable, and we have been able to integrate ThreatLocker with all of our clients."
"The pricing is fair and there is no hard sell."
"Twingate's pricing is fair."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Comms Service Provider
17%
Financial Services Firm
8%
University
8%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business56
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is that the pricing is reasonable, the cost is fair, and the licensing is not too high.
What needs improvement with ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
I would suggest adding an AI-based policy recommendation feature to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform because we have to create every policy manually. If there were a custom AI that could help with ...
What is your primary use case for ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
Our main use case for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is to provide endpoint security and to control each and every application end-to-end that can run on the company's devices, primarily to secur...
What needs improvement with Twingate?
Twingate's lack of native support for Windows Server is a significant limitation. While it hasn't directly affected my company, I've encountered this issue when assisting others. Additionally, the ...
 

Also Known As

Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Blend, Modern Health, Webflow, Liberis, Cerebral, Homebase, Bloomreach, Cameo, Hippo and Bitpanda
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Cisco, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.