Top 10 ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Alternatives

4.6 out of 5

39 reviews
97% willing to recommend

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 SentinelOne Singularity Complete. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform surpasses its competitors by offering advanced app whitelisting, ringfencing for network security, deep visibility into endpoints, and seamless deployment, ensuring superior protection and control over system environments.

ThreatLocker Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with ThreatLocker, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

CrowdStrike Falcon

4.3 out of 5

CrowdStrike Falcon

4.3 out of 5

CrowdStrike Falcon provides advanced EDR and AI-driven cloud-native features for comprehensive endpoint visibility. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers zero trust protection with granular controls over applications and networks, appealing to businesses seeking enhanced security and cost-effectiveness in smaller deployments.

Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

CrowdStrike Falcon has a higher setup cost, focusing on advanced threat detection, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection offers a cost-effective setup with a focus on zero trust security.

View comparison

Pricing

CrowdStrike Falcon has a higher setup cost, focusing on advanced threat detection, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection offers a cost-effective setup with a focus on zero trust security.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

4.1 out of 5

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

4.1 out of 5

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers seamless integration within Windows ecosystems, targeting enterprise-level security needs. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes zero-trust architecture and application whitelisting. Microsoft Defender suits organizations deeply invested in Microsoft products, while ThreatLocker appeals to those needing specialized application control.

Download Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has a low setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform requires significant initial investment, highlighting the affordability of Microsoft's solution compared to the extensive security features provided by ThreatLocker.

View comparison

Pricing

SentinelOne Singularity Complete

4.3 out of 5

SentinelOne Singularity Complete

4.3 out of 5

SentinelOne focuses on autonomous threat detection and rollback with advanced machine learning, suitable for organizations needing real-time ransomware remediation. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers granular application control via allowlisting, ideal for businesses requiring stringent software execution restrictions and comprehensive user permission management.

Download SentinelOne Singularity Complete vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

SentinelOne Singularity Complete has a competitive initial setup cost, whereas ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is more cost-effective for businesses seeking lower initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

4.2 out of 5

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

4.2 out of 5

Cortex XDR features advanced detection and integrates strongly with other Palo Alto products, appealing to those seeking high-end cybersecurity solutions. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers a zero-trust approach with simple application control and cost-effective pricing, ideal for resource-conscious buyers.

Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks often incurs higher setup costs compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, making Cortex XDR a more investment-heavy option. ThreatLocker offers a more cost-effective setup.

View comparison

Pricing

Fortinet FortiClient

4.0 out of 5

Fortinet FortiClient

4.0 out of 5

Fortinet FortiClient excels in dual authentication, VPN security, and integration with Fortinet infrastructure, appealing to those seeking comprehensive security. In comparison, ThreatLocker offers robust application control and zero-trust strategies, ideal for minimizing unauthorized access while supporting strict security measures.

Download Fortinet FortiClient vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Fortinet FortiClient has minimal setup costs making it accessible, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform may require a higher initial investment due to its comprehensive security features.

View comparison

Pricing

Tanium

3.7 out of 5

Tanium

3.7 out of 5

Tanium offers extensive endpoint management suitable for large enterprises with detailed insights. In comparison, ThreatLocker provides a zero trust architecture that appeals to businesses seeking precise app control. Tanium's comprehensive platform contrasts with ThreatLocker's focus on specialized security features.

Download Tanium vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Tanium involves a higher setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, making it a significant factor for businesses weighing initial investments.

View comparison

Pricing

Tanium involves a higher setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, making it a significant factor for businesses weighing initial investments.

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint

3.9 out of 5

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint

3.9 out of 5

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint offers strong detection and threat analysis capabilities due to its cloud-based architecture. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on zero-trust security with allowlisting and ring-fencing, appealing to tech buyers prioritizing application control and streamlined management features.

Download ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform vs. VMware Carbon Black Endpoint Report

Pricing

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint has a straightforward setup process with upfront transparency on costs, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers a competitive pricing model with potentially higher initial setup fees depending on system configurations.

View comparison

Pricing

Cynet

4.4 out of 5

Cynet

4.4 out of 5

Cynet excels in automated threat detection and endpoint protection, while integrating EDR and UBA. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes a zero-trust model with application control. Cynet users appreciate its affordability, whereas ThreatLocker is chosen for its control features despite higher pricing.

Download Cynet vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Cynet offers a low setup cost, making it an attractive choice, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform tends to have a higher initial investment requirement, highlighting a key difference in affordability between the two solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity

4.0 out of 5

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity

4.0 out of 5

BlackBerry Cylance targets lightweight design and machine learning for zero-day threats with efficient resource use. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes zero trust with application allowlisting and process elevation. BlackBerry Cylance faces interface challenges, while ThreatLocker benefits from versatile integration and pricing flexibility.

Download BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity has a moderate setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform typically involves a higher initial investment, highlighting a key difference in their pricing structures.

View comparison

Pricing

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform

4.3 out of 5

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform

4.3 out of 5

Deep Instinct offers high malware detection across Windows, Mac, and Android with minimal setup, emphasizing accuracy and low false positives. In comparison, ThreatLocker provides detailed application control and zero trust features with visible user activity, offering robust endpoint security.

Download Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform has a moderately high setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is noted for a more budget-friendly pricing structure.

View comparison

Pricing

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform has a moderately high setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is noted for a more budget-friendly pricing structure.

Show 3 more products

Related categories

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)

Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)

Ransomware Protection