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

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform vs Twingate comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

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

iboss
Sponsored
Ranking in ZTNA as a Service
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (6th), Internet Security (3rd), Web Content Filtering (1st), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (6th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (7th)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Pla...
Ranking in ZTNA as a Service
5th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
107
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (3rd), Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (5th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (5th), Application Control (1st), ZTNA (6th), Ransomware Protection (1st)
Twingate
Ranking in ZTNA as a Service
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (12th), Internet Security (10th), Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (16th), ZTNA (11th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (19th)
 

Featured Reviews

Ashok Ananthula - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Consultant Proxy Engineering at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Cloud gateway has strengthened remote web security and now needs better Mac and ISP support
The problem our organization had is that iboss failed for the Mac devices. It is not able to give a successful agent for the Mac agents. That is where in 2025, we had to migrate to the Palo Alto-based platform. If your use case is for just Windows laptops,you can consider this platform as an option One issue is the data center resiliency part. In India especially, they are not tied up with the Tier 1 ISPs like Tata or Airtel; they were having Tier 2 ISPs and encountered many issues reaching few major sites that my organization depends on, and they were having problems that they could not fix quickly. They also lack a mechanism to route that traffic within their data center; rather, they ask customers to make a pac file change to route it to Singapore explicitly. It would be better if they route from their backend , i mean even if I send it to India DC, they should be able to route it internally to make that work; however, they fail to do that and ask the customer to route it in the pac file. Another suggestion is that in China, they do not have the proper setup; they used to have numerous problems with slowness and lack of premium circuits in China as well. That leads to multiple sites working slowly with latency-related issues. So the main issue is the ISP-related problems that need to be solved.
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

"I recommend iboss for organizations looking for strong cloud-based web security and centralized access control."
"Iboss is a solution that prevents advanced persistent threats, and has a zero tolerance for attacks."
"The solution has massively improved our security posture, giving us full visibility into what our staff does online."
"The main advantage of iboss is its cloud-based security centralized policy management, which helps organizations protect users working from different locations, secure access to cloud applications, and reduce security risks."
"iboss is easy to use despite its complexity. Multiple engineers manage it, but it's significantly more straightforward to administer than traditional VPNs and web proxies."
"iboss is pretty scalable. They provide good support. The case managers you work with to coordinate what you need are pretty good."
"Our primary use case for this product is DLP,"
"Technical support is pretty sharp and very responsive."
"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."
"The biggest one that we focus on is the application control with ringfencing. That combination is very beneficial."
"It was very beneficial in a sense because you didn't have everyone running whatever they wanted. Everything was controlled and monitored, and you'd have an application set created for each application or whatever was running."
"The benefits of using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for my company include removing previous tools that we did not prefer, replacing them with this solution, and enjoying a significantly better user experience."
"Overall, I rate ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform a 10, and I would advise other companies considering the solution that they should have done it yesterday."
"ThreatLocker provides visibility into user activity and application usage, empowering organizations to define acceptable applications and web browsers."
"Overall, I would rate ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform a ten out of ten."
"The best features ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers is that the entire platform is perfect, it is very user-friendly and helps us manage our endpoints easily, and the parts that stand out for my team are elevation, password rotation, and application control."
"I appreciate Twingate's developer-first approach, particularly its excellent developer tools for deployment and management."
 

Cons

"File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature."
"I appreciate that iboss's single pane of glass console gives centralized visibility into web traffic, user activity, security policies, and alerts from one dashboard, allowing us to quickly investigate incidents and monitor policy violations without switching between multiple tools, improving operational efficiency; however, the dashboard customization and reporting could be more flexible."
"One thing I would like to see differently with their Zero Trust platform is that some of the AI aspects related to high-risk activities have more false positives."
"iboss can be improved because the integration could be better; you need to import all the sites that you access today, and there are a few problems whenever you import thousands of websites, making the integration process messy for the users."
"SSL decryption: We had issues with learners using apps instead of using web browsers. This type of encryption is tough for any appliance in a BYOD environment."
"Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, iboss is not cheap, and that's my only concern."
"Sometimes, obviously, there are bugs."
"For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company ExxonMobil."
"I would suggest further developing the Web Control aspect of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform and also having better compatibility with Apple devices and mobile devices."
"There are some times when applications get submitted, the hashes don't really line up."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform can be improved in one area that needs adjustment: the documentation."
"ThreatLocker's technical support process could be streamlined by reducing the number of steps required to reach a human agent."
"I have not seen a return on investment yet, but there is a small amount of time saved because of fewer dashboards."
"We identified several areas that we would like to see improved."
"The biggest thing I would like to see improved in ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is reporting."
"From my perspective, the initial setup and policy configuration of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform could be more intuitive, especially for new users."
"Twingate's lack of native support for Windows Server is a significant limitation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is expensive compared to one of its competitors."
"It is not expensive, and it is also not cheap. iboss is priced right in the sweet spot for the number of features it offers."
"We had the cost of purchasing a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs. However, the following year, the cost of just licensing was similar to what was paid the previous year for a new appliance along with the implementation and licensing costs."
"It is probably in line with other solutions, but I do not deal with the financial side."
"We have not priced the solution recently, but they were competitive with other vendors in the past."
"The overall pricing for iboss is very competitive and transparent."
"The pricing works fine for me. It's very reasonably priced."
"I find ThreatLocker's pricing to be reasonable for the services it provides."
"The pricing is pretty fair, considering other solutions. Licensing-wise, it did not take long."
"The pricing is fair and there is no hard sell."
"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."
"Others say ThreatLocker is too expensive, and I tell them they're dreaming. It's well-priced for what it does."
"Although the pricing seems good, there have been inconsistencies in contract negotiations."
"Twingate's pricing is fair."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
919,088 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
13%
University
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business72
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise23
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with iboss?
I think iboss could be improved by emphasizing the modular function even more during sales presentations and demonstr...
What is your primary use case for iboss?
iboss is primarily used for content filtering within school districts and public K-12 school districts, and it can al...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for iboss?
The pricing and licensing for iboss were reasonable for the security features. The setup costs were manageable, thoug...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing with ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is that it is owned by my...
What needs improvement with ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
I believe ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform's marketing strategy has to be changed because only fewer organizations, s...
What is your primary use case for ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
My main use case for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is that it helps to prevent somebody from accessing scripts. It...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

iBoss Cloud Platform
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Trusted by global enterprises and government agencies.
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, ThreatLocker and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: September 2026.
919,088 professionals have used our research since 2012.