Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo

Top 10 ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Alternatives

Vendor: ThreatLocker
4.6 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
Leave a review

Top ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, and Microsoft Defender for Office 365. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive application whitelisting, ringfencing to prevent unauthorized access, and dynamic elevation controls, ensuring superior security and unparalleled control over endpoints.

ThreatLocker Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with ThreatLocker, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
CrowdStrike Falcon, with its real-time monitoring and minimal system impact, attracts enterprises needing advanced detection. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes zero trust application control and affordability, appealing to smaller businesses seeking proactive security without high costs.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
CrowdStrike Falcon has a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more intricate initial configuration. The setup process plays a crucial role in determining the ease of deployment for each product.
View comparison
Pricing
CrowdStrike Falcon has a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more intricate initial configuration. The setup process plays a crucial role in determining the ease of deployment for each product.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint seamlessly integrates with Windows systems, offering comprehensive antivirus features and leveraging its extensive user base for threat analytics. In comparison, ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform emphasizes granular application control and ensures only approved apps run through its zero-trust framework.
Download Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers a straightforward setup process with minimal upfront costs, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform requires a more complex setup that can be more costly initially.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers a straightforward setup process with minimal upfront costs, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform requires a more complex setup that can be more costly initially.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Microsoft Defender for Office 365
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Defender for Office 365 strengthens email security and data loss prevention across Office 365, while ThreatLocker focuses on strict access control and application permissions. In comparison, Microsoft Defender offers broad enterprise integration, and ThreatLocker provides robust zero-trust frameworks with application control features.
Download Microsoft Defender for Office 365 vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Microsoft Defender for Office 365 offers an easy setup process, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform typically incurs higher initial costs.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Defender for Office 365 offers an easy setup process, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform typically incurs higher initial costs.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
SentinelOne Singularity Complete
4.3 out of 5
SentinelOne Singularity Complete excels in ransomware protection and automated EDR, offering strong ROI for large deployments. In comparison, ThreatLocker Zero Trust emphasizes application control and zero-trust security, providing cost-effective solutions focused on preventing unauthorized processes and offering strong ROI through targeted application security.
Download SentinelOne Singularity Complete vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
SentinelOne Singularity Complete has a higher setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
SentinelOne Singularity Complete has a higher setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE)
4.1 out of 5
Cisco Identity Services Engine excels in network security management and thorough integration, ideal for complex environments seeking robust visibility. In comparison, ThreatLocker prioritizes application control and zero-trust architecture, appealing to organizations focused on streamlined deployment and efficient security management.
Download Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) incurs a higher initial setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more affordable setup solution, highlighting a significant cost difference between the two.
View comparison
Pricing
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) incurs a higher initial setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more affordable setup solution, highlighting a significant cost difference between the two.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks
4.2 out of 5
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks offers advanced detection and comprehensive protection, appealing to buyers seeking robust security and integration. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on application control and zero-trust security, appealing to those desiring ease of management and cost-effectiveness.
Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks features a high setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more budget-friendly initial investment, highlighting a significant financial consideration between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks features a high setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more budget-friendly initial investment, highlighting a significant financial consideration between the two solutions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Fortinet FortiClient
4.0 out of 5
Fortinet FortiClient excels in affordability and integration with FortiGate, ideal for users seeking comprehensive antivirus and VPN features. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers enhanced zero trust security and application control, appealing to those prioritizing strict access management and granular protection.
Download Fortinet FortiClient vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Fortinet FortiClient has a lower setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex and expensive setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Fortinet FortiClient has a lower setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex and expensive setup.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform
4.2 out of 5
Zscaler offers advanced security features with seamless SSO integration and scalability. In comparison, ThreatLocker provides application allowlisting and granular endpoint controls. For companies needing comprehensive cloud security, Zscaler is a strong choice, while those seeking granular endpoint management might consider ThreatLocker.
Download ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform vs. Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform Report
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform typically involves a higher initial investment compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which offers a more cost-effective setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform typically involves a higher initial investment compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which offers a more cost-effective setup.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Tanium
3.9 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Tanium
3.9 out of 5
Tanium excels in real-time data visibility and customizable deployment, appealing to organizations needing tailored solutions. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on zero-trust architecture and straightforward implementation, making it ideal for businesses valuing strong security and rapid integration. Both offer distinct ROI advantages.
Download Tanium vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Tanium requires higher setup investment compared to the ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a cost advantage for businesses prioritizing quick deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
Tanium requires higher setup investment compared to the ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a cost advantage for businesses prioritizing quick deployment.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform
4.0 out of 5
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform excels in integration, user-friendly dashboards, and adaptive threat prevention; a tech buyer might prioritize efficient management. In comparison, ThreatLocker Zero Trust emphasizes blocking capabilities and robust controls, appealing to those focused on zero-trust models and enhanced security.
Download ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform vs. Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Report
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform offers a straightforward setup with competitive pricing, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform may involve higher initial costs due to its advanced security features.
View comparison
Pricing
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform offers a straightforward setup with competitive pricing, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform may involve higher initial costs due to its advanced security features.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Varonis Platform
4.2 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Varonis Platform
4.2 out of 5
ThreatLocker offers streamlined cybersecurity management with easy remote use and comprehensive support. In comparison, Varonis provides robust data access governance and unstructured data monitoring. ThreatLocker suits flexible deployment needs, while Varonis excels for enterprises requiring extensive data security and governance capabilities.
Download ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform vs. Varonis Platform Report
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is noted for its straightforward setup cost, while Varonis Platform involves a more complex pricing model for initial implementation. These distinct approaches highlight the diverging strategies in pricing and setup cost between the t...
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is noted for its straightforward setup cost, while Varonis Platform involves a more complex pricing model for initial implementation. These distinct approaches highlight the diverging strategies in pricing and setup cost between the t...
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business
4.0 out of 5
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business offers comprehensive protection with features like antivirus and centralized management, ideal for integrated security needs. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes granular application control and zero-trust security, appealing to those seeking detailed management and security insights.
Download Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business typically involves a lower initial setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which is known for higher upfront expenses due to its extensive zero trust framework.
View comparison
Pricing
Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business typically involves a lower initial setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which is known for higher upfront expenses due to its extensive zero trust framework.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform
4.1 out of 5
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform excels in resource-efficient management with antivirus and HIPS features. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on application control with allowlisting and ring-fencing. Tech buyers might choose ESET for cost-effectiveness or ThreatLocker for advanced security integration and application control.
Download ESET Endpoint Protection Platform vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform offers a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex pricing structure that reflects their different approaches to endpoint protection.
View comparison
Pricing
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform offers a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex pricing structure that reflects their different approaches to endpoint protection.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Fortinet FortiNAC
3.8 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Fortinet FortiNAC
3.8 out of 5
Fortinet FortiNAC provides comprehensive network visibility, suitable for managing complex infrastructures. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on application control and zero-trust endpoints. Tech buyers might choose FortiNAC for network management or ThreatLocker for robust endpoint security.
Download Fortinet FortiNAC vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Fortinet FortiNAC requires an upfront setup cost that may be higher than some competitors, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more budget-friendly initial cost, making it more accessible for small to medium-sized enterprises seeking cost efficiency.
View comparison
Pricing
Fortinet FortiNAC requires an upfront setup cost that may be higher than some competitors, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more budget-friendly initial cost, making it more accessible for small to medium-sized enterprises seeking cost efficiency.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
BigFix
4.3 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
BigFix
4.3 out of 5
BigFix excels in managing extensive environments with multi-OS support and compliance, highlighting its value in patch management. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on zero-trust application control, making it ideal for blocking unauthorized applications and managing access effectively.
Download BigFix vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
BigFix has a significant setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more affordable initiation.
View comparison
Pricing
BigFix has a significant setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more affordable initiation.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Microsoft Defender for Identity
4.4 out of 5
Microsoft Defender for Identity excels in integration and comprehensive security across environments. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers zero-trust architecture with rigorous controls. Defender enhances insights and visibility, while ThreatLocker provides exceptional application access control, appealing to tech buyers seeking advanced identity protection or endpoint control.
Download Microsoft Defender for Identity vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Microsoft Defender for Identity incurs no setup cost, offering a cost-effective start, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform may include a more considerable initial investment due to its comprehensive security features.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Defender for Identity incurs no setup cost, offering a cost-effective start, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform may include a more considerable initial investment due to its comprehensive security features.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Intercept X Endpoint
4.2 out of 5
Sophos Intercept X is appealing for its machine learning, anti-ransomware, and centralized management. In comparison, ThreatLocker’s zero-trust, allowlisting, and automation might attract those seeking granular control. Sophos is flexible in deployment, while ThreatLocker offers scalable pricing for budget-conscious buyers.
Download Intercept X Endpoint vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Intercept X Endpoint offers straightforward setup at a minimal cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust comes with a more complex setup and higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Intercept X Endpoint offers straightforward setup at a minimal cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust comes with a more complex setup and higher initial investment.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Cynet
4.4 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Cynet
4.4 out of 5
Cynet offers autonomous threat detection and comprehensive coverage through integration, ideal for enhanced security automation. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on zero-trust strategies with granular user control, making it suitable for environments prioritizing application trust and direct mobile device management.
Download Cynet vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Cynet typically has a higher setup cost compared to the affordable setup fee of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform.
View comparison
Pricing
Cynet typically has a higher setup cost compared to the affordable setup fee of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint
3.9 out of 5
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint offers robust behavioral monitoring and cloud-based operations for advanced threat detection. In comparison, ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection emphasizes application allowlisting and a proactive security model, appealing to tech buyers seeking granular control and transparency in pricing.
Download ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform vs. VMware Carbon Black Endpoint Report
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint has a moderate setup cost, providing robust features, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform incurs a higher initial expense with a strong focus on zero trust security policies.
View comparison
Pricing
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint has a moderate setup cost, providing robust features, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform incurs a higher initial expense with a strong focus on zero trust security policies.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Bitdefender Total Security
4.4 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers granular control with features like application control and live support, appealing to security-focused industries. In comparison, Bitdefender Total Security combines antivirus capabilities with features like VPN and firewall, ideal for managing devices under one license.
Download Bitdefender Total Security vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a straightforward setup with a low setup cost, while Bitdefender Total Security provides a more comprehensive setup process with a higher cost, highlighting the difference in initial financial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a straightforward setup with a low setup cost, while Bitdefender Total Security provides a more comprehensive setup process with a higher cost, highlighting the difference in initial financial investment.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
WatchGuard EPDR
4.2 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
WatchGuard EPDR
4.2 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection offers comprehensive visibility and control over software approvals, optimizing cybersecurity compliance. In comparison, WatchGuard EPDR emphasizes antivirus and threat detection with advanced patch management, benefiting tech buyers prioritizing integrated reporting and policy management tools.
Download ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform vs. WatchGuard EPDR Report
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform includes higher setup costs compared to WatchGuard EPDR, which offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to businesses looking to reduce initial expenditure while maintaining endpoint security.
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform includes higher setup costs compared to WatchGuard EPDR, which offers a more budget-friendly setup, appealing to businesses looking to reduce initial expenditure while maintaining endpoint security.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81)
4.4 out of 5
Check Point Harmony SASE excels with split tunneling, seamless user access, and Zero Trust Network Access, making it suitable for secure organizational access. In comparison, ThreatLocker provides robust application control and ring-fencing, appealing to tech buyers focusing on comprehensive threat management.
Download Check Point Harmony SASE (formerly Perimeter 81) vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Check Point Harmony SASE offers a streamlined setup with competitive costs, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform requires a more extensive initial setup process with a different pricing structure.
View comparison
Pricing
Check Point Harmony SASE offers a streamlined setup with competitive costs, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform requires a more extensive initial setup process with a different pricing structure.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Malwarebytes Teams
4.0 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Malwarebytes Teams
4.0 out of 5
Malwarebytes Teams excels in ease of use and robust malware detection. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers zero-trust security with allowlisting and ring-fencing for granular control. Tech buyers might choose Malwarebytes for simplicity and detection or ThreatLocker for comprehensive, controlled protection.
Download Malwarebytes Teams vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Malwarebytes Teams has no setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform generally incurs a higher initial setup expense, highlighting a significant difference in entry costs between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Malwarebytes Teams has no setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform generally incurs a higher initial setup expense, highlighting a significant difference in entry costs between the two solutions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management
4.0 out of 5
ThreatLocker offers flexible remote management and robust allowlisting, appealing to those needing granular control. In comparison, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management integrates with Microsoft's ecosystem, ideal for enterprises requiring comprehensive vulnerability management with SIEM integration and continuous monitoring.
Download Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has a more affordable setup cost, while Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management requires higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has a more affordable setup cost, while Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management requires higher initial investment.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager
4.1 out of 5
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager offers robust security with extensive integration, ideal for large enterprises. In comparison, ThreatLocker is competitively priced with flexible deployment, making it suitable for MSPs seeking scalability. CyberArk's technical support needs improvement, while ThreatLocker excels in responsive customer service.
Download CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager involves an upfront setup cost, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more straightforward setup with lower initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager involves an upfront setup cost, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more straightforward setup with lower initial expenses.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Twingate
4.0 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Twingate
4.0 out of 5
ThreatLocker offers robust endpoint security with application whitelisting and storage control. In comparison, Twingate excels in network access with adaptable segmentation. ThreatLocker ensures comprehensive support, while Twingate offers seamless, quick setup. Pricing favors ThreatLocker, while Twingate delivers higher ROI through advanced features.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has a higher setup cost than Twingate, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. This distinction highlights a key difference in initial investment between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has a higher setup cost than Twingate, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. This distinction highlights a key difference in initial investment between the two solutions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity
4.0 out of 5
BlackBerry Cylance offers AI-driven protection with minimal system impact, appealing for those prioritizing ease of use and advanced threat detection. In comparison, ThreatLocker excels in application control, offering detailed oversight with its zero-trust model, ideal for users needing granular operational visibility.
Download BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity setup costs are straightforward and simple, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform requires a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity setup costs are straightforward and simple, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform requires a higher initial investment.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
GravityZone Business Security
4.3 out of 5
GravityZone Business Security is favored for its user-friendly interface and cost-effectiveness, excelling in detection efficiency with strong integration capabilities. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes granular control and proactive prevention through advanced whitelisting, offering a flexible pricing model with comprehensive security functionality.
Download GravityZone Business Security vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
GravityZone Business Security has an affordable setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex setup.
View comparison
Pricing
GravityZone Business Security has an affordable setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex setup.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform
4.3 out of 5
Deep Instinct excels with a single-platform approach and high detection rates, making it suitable for detailed threat analysis, while ThreatLocker offers straightforward application control and ease of use. In comparison, ThreatLocker provides scalable pricing models and application-specific security features.
Download Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform has higher setup costs than ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection, highlighting a key financial difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform has higher setup costs than ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection, highlighting a key financial difference between the two solutions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Automox
4.5 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Automox
4.5 out of 5
Automox's cloud-native design emphasizes automated scalability, ideal for cost-conscious buyers. In comparison, ThreatLocker's zero trust framework enhances security access control, appealing to enterprises prioritizing comprehensive measures. ThreatLocker's in-depth features justify its cost, while Automox offers budget-friendly simplicity.
Download Automox vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Automox setup costs are minimal, contrasting with ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which requires a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Automox setup costs are minimal, contrasting with ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which requires a higher initial investment.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security
4.1 out of 5
Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security focuses on scalability and comprehensive threat protection, useful for organizations needing extensive monitoring capabilities. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes stringent access control, making it ideal for companies prioritizing zero-trust environments and detailed application management.
Download Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security has a lower initial setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a cost difference between the two cybersecurity solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Bitdefender GravityZone Enterprise Security has a lower initial setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a cost difference between the two cybersecurity solutions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Portnox
4.0 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Portnox
4.0 out of 5
Portnox excels in pricing and customer support with network access control and easy integration. In comparison, ThreatLocker justifies its higher cost with advanced features like application whitelisting. Portnox suits budget-conscious buyers, whereas ThreatLocker appeals with comprehensive security measures.
Download Portnox vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Portnox has a lower setup cost, while ThreatLocker incurs higher initial expenses.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Portnox has a lower setup cost, while ThreatLocker incurs higher initial expenses.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Halcyon
1 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Halcyon
1 out of 5
ThreatLocker impresses with its cost-effective pricing and comprehensive support, attracting budget-focused buyers with ease of deployment. In comparison, Halcyon's AI-driven capabilities and automation justify higher costs, appealing to tech buyers valuing advanced features and long-term investments in security technology.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has a nominal setup cost, while Halcyon offers an entirely free setup process, highlighting a distinct cost advantage for organizations opting for Halcyon over ThreatLocker in terms of initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has a nominal setup cost, while Halcyon offers an entirely free setup process, highlighting a distinct cost advantage for organizations opting for Halcyon over ThreatLocker in terms of initial expenses.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Jamf Protect
4.7 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Jamf Protect
4.7 out of 5
ThreatLocker excels with zero trust policies and application whitelisting. In comparison, Jamf Protect offers real-time macOS monitoring. ThreatLocker's competitive pricing appeals with strong ROI, while Jamf Protect is ideal for Apple users valuing macOS integration and advanced features.
Download Jamf Protect vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a streamlined setup at a lower initial cost, while Jamf Protect incurs higher setup expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a streamlined setup at a lower initial cost, while Jamf Protect incurs higher setup expenses.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Heimdal Endpoint Security
4.5 out of 5
Heimdal Endpoint Security, known for its cost-effective deployment and responsive customer support, focuses on proactive defense. In comparison, ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection offers comprehensive security with its zero trust principles, appealing to buyers seeking extensive protection despite higher initial setup costs.
Heimdal Endpoint Security has a straightforward setup cost, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform includes advanced setup processes. ThreatLocker emphasizes zero trust security, while Heimdal focuses on efficient endpoint management and protection.
View comparison
Pricing
Heimdal Endpoint Security has a straightforward setup cost, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform includes advanced setup processes. ThreatLocker emphasizes zero trust security, while Heimdal focuses on efficient endpoint management and protection.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Absolute Secure Endpoint
1 out of 5
Absolute Secure Endpoint is preferred for its pricing, straightforward deployment, and effective support, making it ideal for quick implementation. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers a comprehensive feature set and detailed zero-trust model, appealing to organizations focusing on advanced security and application control.
Absolute Secure Endpoint involves significant setup costs, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform tends to be more budget-friendly, highlighting a key difference in initial investment between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Absolute Secure Endpoint involves significant setup costs, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform tends to be more budget-friendly, highlighting a key difference in initial investment between the two solutions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
VMware Carbon Black App Control
4.6 out of 5
VMware Carbon Black App Control provides robust support and affordability with strong application control, appealing to those focused on compliance. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes Zero Trust security and proactive measures, suiting organizations seeking advanced endpoint protection and willing to invest in long-term security benefits.
Download ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform vs. VMware Carbon Black App Control Report
VMware Carbon Black App Control offers competitive setup cost options, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform provides flexibility with its setup cost structure. This contrast highlights VMware's upfront structure against ThreatLocker's adaptable pricing approach.
View comparison
Pricing
VMware Carbon Black App Control offers competitive setup cost options, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform provides flexibility with its setup cost structure. This contrast highlights VMware's upfront structure against ThreatLocker's adaptable pricing approach.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Citrix Secure Private Access
4.2 out of 5
Citrix Secure Private Access excels in cost-effectiveness and ease of deployment with robust integration and customer support. In comparison, ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform attracts with enhanced security features like real-time threat detection and detailed customization, justifying its higher investment for comprehensive protection.
Download Citrix Secure Private Access vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report
Citrix Secure Private Access involves higher setup costs compared to ThreatLocker's Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a significant disparity in initial investment requirements between the two security solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Citrix Secure Private Access involves higher setup costs compared to ThreatLocker's Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, highlighting a significant disparity in initial investment requirements between the two security solutions.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Ivanti Application Control
1 out of 5
Ivanti Application Control leverages affordability, appealing to budget-conscious businesses seeking basic security. In comparison, ThreatLocker Zero Trust offers detailed protection with extensive auditing, attracting those needing comprehensive solutions. Ivanti provides robust support post-deployment, while ThreatLocker ensures faster setup and responsive assistance.
Ivanti Application Control incurs a higher setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more budget-friendly installation.
View comparison
Pricing
Ivanti Application Control incurs a higher setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a more budget-friendly installation.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ManageEngine Application Control Plus
1 out of 5
ManageEngine excels with detailed application whitelisting and competitive pricing, appealing to those prioritizing budget and support. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers superior security via zero-trust architecture, catering to businesses needing advanced control despite higher costs and complex deployment.
ManageEngine Application Control Plus offers competitive setup costs, distinguishing itself from the higher initial investment required by ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform.
View comparison
Pricing
ManageEngine Application Control Plus offers competitive setup costs, distinguishing itself from the higher initial investment required by ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Logo
Airlock Digital Application Control
1 out of 5
Airlock Digital Application Control effectively manages application whitelisting and compliance. Key features include ease of deployment and integration. Improvements are needed in reporting and automation capabilities. Security teams appreciate its lightweight design and reliable threat protection functionalities.
View comparison

Related categories

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
Network Access Control (NAC)
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)