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

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Deep Instinct Prevention Pl...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
41st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (16th)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust End...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
6th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (5th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (6th), Application Control (2nd), ZTNA (3rd), Ransomware Protection (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Elena Yau - PeerSpot reviewer
Prevention, in advance, saves us remediation time
We have a PHI (protected health information) committee, and some of the things that we review on a weekly basis are incidents. For example, if there was malware or adware or some kind of phishing attempt, or even ransomware, we would have to investigate and see if there was any PHI impact. We've seen small things because some kind of adware made its way through the browser from some malicious link, and it's really hard to prevent those. We're putting more levels of filtering around that. There are some product development ideas that we have been working on alongside the DI team, and they've been super helpful. There are definitely a lot more little areas of improvement for the interface. Also, we have talked with the DI team about adding the forensic piece, which is what we do a lot. That would be added value and they've just recently provided more individuals to think about the roadmap. That's part of their strategy and one of the good features that they want to bring on. Hopefully, they can bring that to fruition and that will ease our workflow a little bit more. The additional predictive and prevention capabilities in the 3.0 version, that don't require special rules and configuration, help our organization. The only caveat is that when things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background, if it is doing some kind of intervention. If we need to do some forensics, we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was. We should be able to see what instigated that trigger by DI and what exactly was done. That's a missing piece. It does a good job of preventing, but then we don't know what were the symptoms of the prevention. Let's say that there was like a PowerShell block. We'll see an indicator on the dashboard and we'll look at the logs and investigate. Sometimes we find that the logs that are captured locally on the endpoint itself are not very thorough. We were coached through our training with DI that, when troubleshooting, the DI team would always ask for the logs from the endpoint. We know what we need to do to look at something. But the logging for DI doesn't capture everything. There are some things that are missing. When it comes to root-cause analysis, or kill-chain analysis, and figuring out exactly what happened, it's very hard to do that right now on the product. I have used Carbon Black before and they're pretty good with the forensic analysis. That does save some efforts of my one engineer and myself when we have to go through the PHI committee. Right now, with Di, that feels like a blind spot. Another area for development is making the license clean-up a little bit easier. We always have to manually uninstall agents. If there were some way to remove the licensing and do better license management on the platform, that would help my team as well.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"When we were looking at Carbon Black and Sophos, the prevention pieces weren't as strong when compared to DI, which is why we decided to go with DI... I would rather have a product that does the prevention up front and saves me the effort of having to wipe someone's workstation."
"Good detections for PowerShell. and good user interface."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Deep Instinct's detection rate is close to 100 percent."
"It's just a single agent that has everything in it... With the EDR solutions, you have to install it, then you have another service history installed, and you have behavioral analytics, etc. With this, everything is in a single small "box," a small agent that has pretty much got everything."
"Deep Instinct complements the solutions we already have. You don't need to rip and replace any antivirus or endpoint that you have. It's easy to use and it's easy to have it side-by-side with other solutions. That makes it really easy to have an additional level of protection, rather than to hassle with doing solution migration."
"I like the dashboard. It looks very simple."
"It has the lowest false-positive ratio that I have come across. I have only had one which was a legitimate file that I had to whitelist. It was for one of the applications I was trying to install and integrate. But the false positive ratio is very low."
"The pre-built policies and the fact that I get notified when a user requests an application are significant."
"We use ThreatLocker's Allowlisting to whitelist specific applications and prevent unauthorized software from running."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped us protect our environments and have more meaningful requests for access as well as meaningful logging for response."
"Every single feature has been invaluable."
"I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"Using ThreatLocker is effortless because I can access it from an app on my phone, so I can help clients after hours. My client had an issue while I was at dinner, and I didn't have a tech on the problem, but I could deal with it from my phone. I can see what the client is doing and approve or deny it. It helps me deliver better service to my clients when they need it."
"A few years back, we had an attack on one of our biggest clients."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform's ability to block access to unauthorized applications has been excellent."
 

Cons

"The Management Console is not localized."
"If the tool was able to provide fine-tuning capabilities from the product's end depending on the environment of its user, then it would be a good improvement in the solution."
"Some features are too resource intensive."
"The interface on the endpoint could be a little more descriptive and more valuable. It doesn't always tell you the data you need to see. Improvement there would be very helpful."
"I would like to see improvement in the user interface so that the user has more control. For example, it would be good if a user could change their grouping if they want to be part of another group. Or if I want to right-click and scan a specific file that I just imported, that would be helpful. Sometimes you just want to do an extra scan to make sure you're safe."
"If they can bring some additional, complementary solutions, like network scanning and the like, that will help. If they had some sort of a firewall which could help detect DDoS attacks and other things, it would be an improvement"
"I think it's probably the administration, especially the administration platform, which could be improved in the solution. It's clunky and hard to navigate, especially for inexperienced technicians."
"When things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background... we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was."
"More visibility in the built-ins would be nice."
"This is my first Zero Trust conference, and so far, it has been good. The only thing I have noticed is that sometimes they encounter technical issues. For example, in one of the demo labs, the laptop trying to connect to the projector was not working, which affected the demonstration of the victim versus attacker laptop scenarios. It would be helpful to fix these issues."
"The support could be quicker. There are times when there is a delay in getting a response. This is problematic when immediate attention is needed."
"The reporting could be improved."
"The user experience could be improved."
"I find that the learning mode is too accessible. Technicians sometimes default to it instead of manually building policy controls."
"ThreatLocker Allowlisting needs to improve its user interface and overall workflow."
"If you have a thousand computers with ThreatLocker agents on them, when you approve or create a new policy saying that Adobe Reader that matches this hashtag and meets certain criteria is allowed to be installed, it applies at the top level or the organization level. It applies to every computer in the company. When you make that new policy and push it out and it goes out and updates all of the clients. Unfortunately, at this time, it does not look like they stagger the push-out."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"In comparison to the other products out there, it's exceptionally competitively priced. When you consider the lower administrative overhead that it facilitates, it's an absolute value."
"The pricing is a little bit expensive but we are satisfied with DI's performance."
"Their pricing is very competitive. It is good, fair, and a lot cheaper than what we were doing with Cylance."
"There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool."
"Pricing and licensing are very straightforward. It's two SKUs, one is for the console and the other is for the client."
"There are no additional costs on the price, and our company has a support contract, which bundles in those services anyway."
"If I include the false positive rate and the detection rate in the comparison, Deep Instinct is worth its price."
"Its pricing is too high, but that is not because of the product. It is expensive because of the cost of the console. You need a console to control the whole thing, but the console is expensive. You have to split this cost among all possible users. Normally, to be able to make it economically attractive, you need at least 1,000 agents, PCs, or users. If you have a customer with 300 to 500 agents, PCs, or users, it becomes too pricey."
"I believe ThreatLocker's pricing model is fair and flexible, allowing account managers to offer customized deals based on our specific needs."
"I do not deal with pricing, but I assume it is cost-effective for us. We choose a solution based on functionality and affordability."
"The pricing is fair and there is no hard sell."
"Its price is fair. They have added some additional things to it beyond allowlisting. They are up-charging for them, but in terms of the value we get and the way it impacts us, we get a bang for our buck with ThreatLocker than a lot of our other security tools."
"ThreatLocker's pricing seems justifiable."
"I find ThreatLocker's pricing to be reasonable for the services it provides."
"The pricing works fine for me. It's very reasonably priced."
"Others say ThreatLocker is too expensive, and I tell them they're dreaming. It's well-priced for what it does."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
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 Deep Instinct?
The product offers integration capabilities and is also easy to use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Deep Instinct?
There is a need for customers of the product to pay towards the licensing costs of the tool.
What needs improvement with Deep Instinct?
The solution's stability is good. If the tool was able to provide fine-tuning capabilities from the product's end depending on the environment of its user, then it would be a good improvement in th...
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

No data available
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.