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

Portnox vs ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 23, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
Portnox CORE improved network visibility, security, and efficiency, reducing costs and enhancing decision-making through detailed analytics and automated features.
Sentiment score
8.1
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform enhances security, improves efficiency, saves costs, increases revenue, and supports business growth by reducing threats.
If you were moving from a traditional on-premise NAC that was 100% managed by the IT department, there would be great savings in going to a cloud-based NAC with Portnox.
If something were to happen without ThreatLocker, the cost would be huge, and thus, having it is definitely worth it.
The main return on investment is peace of mind, knowing that with ThreatLocker on any endpoint, it will almost always block all malicious code or exploits, even zero-day exploits.
It keeps malware, Trojans, and ransomware at bay.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.2
Portnox customer service is praised for responsiveness and knowledge, though some users suggest improvements in local services and ticketing.
Sentiment score
8.8
ThreatLocker Zero Trust's responsive customer service, highlighted by the Cyber Hero program, is praised for speed, professionalism, and effectiveness.
They respond very immediately and provide detailed, amazing support.
I was seeing weird things, and they were able to explain things to me and help me quickly find a resolution.
They resolved issues quickly and provided clear explanations.
They have been very responsive, helpful, and knowledgeable.
I would rate their customer support a ten out of ten.
Their support is world-class.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Portnox is highly scalable, supporting thousands of endpoints, though large-scale deployments sometimes need additional resources.
Sentiment score
8.2
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform offers seamless scalability and adaptability, efficiently managing diverse environments and dynamic growth across endpoints.
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.
I would rate it a ten out of ten for scalability.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
Users find Portnox stable overall, with occasional minor issues; experiences vary by configuration and version. Stability rated 6-9/10.
Sentiment score
7.5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is praised for stability and reliability, with minor issues swiftly addressed by support.
The product itself is available and its uptime is 100%.
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.
 

Room For Improvement

Portnox needs GUI improvements, better remote site functionality, enhanced support, integration, and more effective licensing and firewall features.
ThreatLocker needs UI improvements, better integrations, expanded training, enhanced analytics, restricted Learning Mode, and faster support.
Ideally, we should be able to search for any MAC address in the database, regardless of its authentication status, to see all its associated groups and potential conflicts.
When I'm doing filtering at times, it doesn't filter the items properly.
They don't have much support during Asia Pacific hours.
Controlling the cloud environment, not just endpoints, is crucial.
This is problematic when immediate attention is needed.
Comprehensive 24-hour log monitoring is a valuable enhancement for both business and enterprise-level users.
 

Setup Cost

Portnox pricing includes annual per-device fees, valued for flexibility but considered high, offering notable features and scalability.
Enterprise buyers find ThreatLocker's pricing competitive and flexible, valuing its affordability, transparency, and accessible setup costs.
If you compare Portnox with all other well-known standard products, it is the cheapest.
The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe.
It is a bit on the high side, but considering the cloud features and how much it costs to run the instance in the cloud, it is not unreasonable.
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.'
I had a really good deal at the time, and it continues to be cost-effective.
 

Valuable Features

Portnox provides agentless network security with easy deployment, intuitive UI, seamless Azure integration, and comprehensive reporting for operational efficiency.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform enhances security with features like application control, selective elevation, and robust network access controls.
It's notable how Portnox has improved operational efficiency.
It is very easy to implement on our current network hardware.
We use Meraki for our switching, making it simple to point all our networks and offices to Portnox.
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.
 

Categories and Ranking

Portnox
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
7th
Ranking in ZTNA
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Passwordless Authentication (2nd)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust End...
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
5th
Ranking in ZTNA
3rd
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (6th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (6th), Application Control (2nd), Ransomware Protection (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Portnox is 3.3%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

Scott Kerr - PeerSpot reviewer
It is seamless and integrates well with our Azure setup
We use devices like PLCs and controllers, and when we receive a request to allow one on the network, we bypass typical authentication, associate it with a group account, and push it to a firewalled VLAN. However, problems arise when the same MAC address is requested for a different project. Our current system only finds authenticated MAC addresses, making it difficult to troubleshoot when the same device is used for multiple purposes. Ideally, we should be able to search for any MAC address in the database, regardless of its authentication status, to see all its associated groups and potential conflicts.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Computer Software Company
38%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
5%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Portnox CORE?
It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Portnox CORE?
It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle, so I'll probably give it a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with Portnox CORE?
We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE. At the end of the day, Portnox Clear's capabilities are much more...
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?
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 ...
What needs improvement with ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
I find that the learning mode is too accessible. Technicians sometimes default to it instead of manually building policy controls. I would prefer the learning mode to be harder to access, ideally h...
 

Also Known As

Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Portnox vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.