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

Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS) vs ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on May 20, 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

Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS)
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
13th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Pla...
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
4th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
107
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (5th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (4th), Application Control (1st), ZTNA as a Service (5th), ZTNA (4th), Ransomware Protection (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS) is 3.2%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is 2.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform2.6%
Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS)3.2%
Other94.2%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

Le Ban - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Security Manager & Chief IT Engineer at JVPC
Affordable product with an easy initial setup process
Ivanti NAC's most valuable feature is reasonable pricing The product's performance needs improvement. We are doing the PoC of Ivanti NAC. I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten. I rate Ivanti NAC's scalability an eight out of ten. We have 150 users for it. I contacted the…
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Ivanti NAC's most valuable feature is reasonable pricing."
"Integration with other vendors is possible."
"The profiler option allows me to see every detail in a systematic manner from a switch. I can choose the switch and I can see the port NAC address and time."
"The solution has made knowing and managing what is running on our clients' devices much easier for us. We know they cannot run what they are not supposed to run."
"The Zero Trust factor is valuable because it blocks everything. That helps us to stay ahead of bad actors. We do not have to be in recovery mode."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has definitely saved us on operational costs and expenses by preventing incidents."
"Being able to move off of that and utilize ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for our PAM as well has brought our costs down by about thirty percent, ultimately allowing us to reap more of the benefits of the enterprise value."
"The environment with ThreatLocker always blocked suspicious activity and anything that was not added to the whitelist, proving to be a very secure tool."
"Since implementing ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform, I have significantly reduced the risk of malware and ransomware execution by blocking several unauthorized applications by default, reducing the number of users with local administrator privileges, and overall reducing my attack surface, improving compliance, and providing better visibility."
"With ThreatLocker, we don't have shadow IT, and it has reduced ransomware."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform has helped us improve endpoint security by providing better control and visibility over application execution."
 

Cons

"The product's performance needs improvement."
"The documentation needs to be improved. There are a lot of details that are missed which makes it confusing."
"At some point, the server got cached and we faced several issues that impacted our customers. We would like to have this resolved."
"Another thing is that ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is not an entire DLP replacement."
"I actually have a gripe with the allowlisting feature of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform."
"A slightly more modernized interface for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform would be nice, but the interface does its job for what it needs to at the moment."
"One area I see for improvement is in the visibility of support tickets within the ThreatLocker ticketing system."
"One of the things I would really like is the ability to create custom groups and assign machines to them."
"I have encountered some problems with stability, however, they are resolved quickly."
"At the time, ThreatLocker does not have a great way to do that; you have to make separate groups."
"ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is very stable with many releases related to ThreatLocker agent. However, it does consume a lot of storage and memory on physical devices as it stores all policy data, which can take up to five, ten, fifteen, or twenty GB, and this can lead to high CPU usage at times."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is cost-effective."
"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."
"So far, it has been great. I have no complaints. Of course, everybody wishes it was cheaper."
"We have not had any real issues with the pricing. As they have added more features, due to the way our contracts are structured with our customers, we have had to hold off on adopting the new features because they do add costs."
"I do not know about the licensing and price as it comes bundled from our MSP. However, it seems fairly reasonable for us, which is why we chose it."
"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."
"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 was primarily a mistake on our part due to how we initially priced it to clients."
"The pricing is pretty fair, considering other solutions. Licensing-wise, it did not take long."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business73
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 organization, so I am not certain about the pricing and licensing details. Howe...
What needs improvement with ThreatLocker Allowlisting?
I believe ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform's marketing strategy has to be changed because only fewer organizations, such as small and mid-scale organizations, have been using it right now. It has t...
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 will allow access if it is a valid one; otherwise, we can reject it. This helps...
 

Also Known As

Pulse Policy Secure
Protect, Allowlisting, Network Control, Ringfencing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Entegrus
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS) vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.