Top 10 ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Alternatives

4.5 out of 5

18 reviews
92% 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 comprehensive application whitelisting, powerful ringfencing capabilities, and robust storage controls, ensuring unparalleled protection and control over endpoint security.

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 offers advanced threat detection and AI-driven protection with minimal system impact, ideal for those seeking comprehensive visibility and real-time response. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes granular control with zero-trust policies, suited for environments needing stringent application management and interaction oversight.

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

Pricing

CrowdStrike Falcon offers a straightforward setup with minimal initial costs, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust presents a more complex setup that may involve higher expenses. Users may find CrowdStrike easier and more cost-effective to implement initially than ThreatLocker.

View comparison

Pricing

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

4.0 out of 5

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

4.0 out of 5

Microsoft Defender offers seamless integration into Windows with strong antivirus and threat detection capabilities. In comparison, ThreatLocker excels in granular security through zero trust and allowlisting. Defender appeals for its cost-effectiveness, while ThreatLocker attracts those needing detailed application control and custom security measures.

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

Pricing

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers a cost-effective setup, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform incurs higher initial expenses, highlighting a key difference in setup costs.

View comparison

Pricing

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers a cost-effective setup, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform incurs higher initial expenses, highlighting a key difference in setup costs.

SentinelOne Singularity Complete

4.4 out of 5

SentinelOne Singularity Complete

4.4 out of 5

SentinelOne Singularity Complete excels in comprehensive threat detection and auto-remediation, making it ideal for those prioritizing endpoint protection and AI features. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on strict application control and zero trust, appealing to buyers seeking cost-effective, controlled application behavior.

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

Pricing

SentinelOne Singularity Complete offers a comprehensive setup, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform emphasizes minimal setup complexity. SentinelOne focuses on seamless integration, contrasting with ThreatLocker's straightforward onboarding.

View comparison

Pricing

Fortinet FortiClient

4.0 out of 5

Fortinet FortiClient

4.0 out of 5

Fortinet FortiClient offers affordability and integration with Fortinet's ecosystem, appealing to users valuing cost-effective VPN and security features. In comparison, ThreatLocker provides robust zero-trust application control, attracting those prioritizing strict security through application whitelisting and real-time elevation capabilities.

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

Pricing

Fortinet FortiClient has a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex setup process.

View comparison

Pricing

Fortinet FortiClient has a straightforward setup cost, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves a more complex setup process.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

4.2 out of 5

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks

4.2 out of 5

Cortex XDR delivers advanced threat detection with AI integration and strong firewall compatibility, ideal for resource-rich environments. In comparison, ThreatLocker excels with straightforward zero-trust application control, offering cost-effective security with simple deployment for those prioritizing ease of use and accessibility.

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

Pricing

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks incurs a higher setup cost compared to ThreatLocker's Zero Trust Endpoint Protection, which offers a more cost-effective setup.

View comparison

Pricing

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks incurs a higher setup cost compared to ThreatLocker's Zero Trust Endpoint Protection, which offers a more cost-effective setup.

Tanium

3.7 out of 5

Tanium

3.7 out of 5

Tanium offers comprehensive endpoint management with its real-time data collection and incident response capabilities, appealing to companies seeking extensive management features. In comparison, ThreatLocker focuses on zero-trust security, making it ideal for organizations prioritizing cost-effective, robust security measures over broader management functionalities.

Download Tanium vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Tanium has higher setup costs compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which offers a more budget-friendly setup option.

View comparison

Pricing

Tanium has higher setup costs compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which offers a more budget-friendly setup option.

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint

3.9 out of 5

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint

3.9 out of 5

VMware Carbon Black offers advanced threat detection and integration features, enhancing security protocols. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes Zero Trust with strong access controls. Both provide substantial ROI, with Carbon Black offering premium security, while ThreatLocker caters to budget-conscious businesses with transparent pricing.

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

Pricing

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint has a moderate setup cost compared to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, which has a higher initial investment, highlighting the cost differences in deploying these cybersecurity solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

Cynet

4.4 out of 5

Cynet

4.4 out of 5

Cynet offers comprehensive protection with user-friendly features, including user behavior analysis and deception capabilities. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes strict application control with Zero Trust principles, offering detailed monitoring and flexible pricing. Both integrate well into IT environments, ensuring stability and customer satisfaction.

Download Cynet vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Report

Pricing

Cynet offers a straightforward setup process with minimal costs, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform involves higher initial setup fees. The difference in costs may influence the choice based on budget considerations.

View comparison

Pricing

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity

4.0 out of 5

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity

4.0 out of 5

BlackBerry Cylance provides AI-driven threat detection and versatile deployment options. In comparison, ThreatLocker emphasizes application control with zero trust strategies, excelling in cost-effectiveness. BlackBerry offers powerful AI capabilities, while ThreatLocker is noted for its robust security features and customer support.

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

Pricing

BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity is noted for its cost-effective setup, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform may require a higher initial investment. BlackBerry stands out for budget-conscious users, whereas ThreatLocker targets those ready to invest more upfront.

View comparison

Pricing

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform

4.3 out of 5

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform

4.3 out of 5

Deep Instinct offers seamless integration and high detection rates without regular updates, ideal for predictive malware detection. In comparison, ThreatLocker provides robust security with zero-trust and ring-fencing, focusing on controlled application access for rigorous security through allowlisting.

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

Pricing

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform offers a straightforward setup process with competitive costs, while ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has a more complex setup that might incur higher initial expenses, highlighting their difference in initial cost structure.

View comparison

Pricing

Show 2 more products

Related categories

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)

Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)

Ransomware Protection