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

Top 10 Jamf Protect Alternatives

Vendor: JAMF
4.5 out of 5
Leave a review

Top Jamf Protect Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Jamf Protect based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Jamf Protect surpasses its competitors by offering robust Apple-centric security solutions, integrating seamlessly with macOS, providing real-time threat detection, and offering advanced telemetry, which ensures comprehensive protection for businesses leveraging Apple devices.

JAMF Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with JAMF, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Jamf Protect Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
Jamf Protect Logo
CrowdStrike Falcon
4.3 out of 5
CrowdStrike Falcon offers broad threat intelligence and robust detection, appealing to organizations seeking comprehensive security across platforms. In comparison, Jamf Protect's native macOS integration and Apple-specific support attract businesses deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem seeking tailored protection and management.
Download CrowdStrike Falcon vs. Jamf Protect Report
CrowdStrike Falcon is noted for a lower initial setup cost, while Jamf Protect requires a higher upfront investment.
View comparison
Pricing
CrowdStrike Falcon is noted for a lower initial setup cost, while Jamf Protect requires a higher upfront investment.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
4.1 out of 5
Both products secure enterprise environments, but Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers comprehensive threat intelligence and cross-platform applicability. In comparison, Jamf Protect excels in macOS security and user-centric device management, making it ideal for Mac-centric setups. Defender's broader features contrast Jamf's specialized macOS focus.
Download Jamf Protect vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Report
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint reviews indicate a moderate setup cost while Jamf Protect users report a slightly higher initial expense. Differences in setup costs between the two solutions are notable.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint reviews indicate a moderate setup cost while Jamf Protect users report a slightly higher initial expense. Differences in setup costs between the two solutions are notable.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks
4.2 out of 5
Cortex XDR excels in advanced threat protection with comprehensive threat detection and strong analytics, ideal for those needing robust threat intelligence. In comparison, Jamf Protect offers seamless integration with Mac OS and iOS, making it an excellent choice for Apple-centric environments requiring real-time monitoring and compliance management.
Download Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks vs. Jamf Protect Report
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks has a higher setup cost compared to Jamf Protect, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. Jamf Protect's lower setup expense might appeal to organizations with constrained initial budgets.
View comparison
Pricing
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks has a higher setup cost compared to Jamf Protect, which offers a more budget-friendly setup. Jamf Protect's lower setup expense might appeal to organizations with constrained initial budgets.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
SentinelOne Singularity Complete
4.4 out of 5
SentinelOne Singularity Complete excels with AI-driven threat detection and automated response, offering robust protection for diverse systems. In comparison, Jamf Protect specializes in seamless Apple device integration and proactive macOS defense. SentinelOne's strength is extensive coverage, while Jamf Protect focuses on Apple ecosystem security.
Download Jamf Protect vs. SentinelOne Singularity Complete Report
SentinelOne Singularity Complete has a higher setup cost compared to Jamf Protect, which makes Jamf Protect more budget-friendly for initial deployment. SentinelOne offers robust features that justify the higher setup expense.
View comparison
Pricing
SentinelOne Singularity Complete has a higher setup cost compared to Jamf Protect, which makes Jamf Protect more budget-friendly for initial deployment. SentinelOne offers robust features that justify the higher setup expense.
Jamf Protect Logo
Tanium
3.9 out of 5
Jamf Protect Logo
Tanium
3.9 out of 5
Tanium offers comprehensive endpoint management with robust support, ideal for diverse infrastructures. In comparison, Jamf Protect excels in specialized macOS security, appealing to Mac-focused environments. Tanium's cost-effectiveness spans various systems, while Jamf Protect's premium pricing suits dedicated Apple product users.
Download Jamf Protect vs. Tanium Report
Tanium requires a higher initial investment compared to Jamf Protect, which offers a more budget-friendly setup cost.
View comparison
Pricing
Tanium requires a higher initial investment compared to Jamf Protect, which offers a more budget-friendly setup cost.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform
3.9 out of 5
Trellix offers pricing flexibility and advanced threat prevention suited for enterprise deployments. In comparison, Jamf Protect excels in macOS integration and ease of use, ideal for Apple environments. Trellix may have setup complexities; Jamf Protect is limited in non-Apple support.
Download Jamf Protect vs. Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Report
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform involves higher setup costs compared to Jamf Protect, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. The contrast in setup costs may be significant for budget-conscious users evaluating the initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Trellix Endpoint Security Platform involves higher setup costs compared to Jamf Protect, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. The contrast in setup costs may be significant for budget-conscious users evaluating the initial investment.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Fortinet FortiClient
4.0 out of 5
Fortinet FortiClient stands out for its comprehensive threat protection and endpoint visibility across multiple platforms, offering cost-effective security with responsive support. In comparison, Jamf Protect excels in real-time macOS threat detection and specialized Apple device security, delivering strong ROI despite a higher upfront cost.
Download Fortinet FortiClient vs. Jamf Protect Report
Fortinet FortiClient has a high setup cost, whereas Jamf Protect offers a more affordable setup option. Users report easier initial configuration with Jamf Protect compared to the more complex setup required for Fortinet FortiClient.
View comparison
Pricing
Fortinet FortiClient has a high setup cost, whereas Jamf Protect offers a more affordable setup option. Users report easier initial configuration with Jamf Protect compared to the more complex setup required for Fortinet FortiClient.
Jamf Protect Logo
BigFix
4.3 out of 5
Jamf Protect Logo
BigFix
4.3 out of 5
BigFix excels in device management and security compliance, offering comprehensive features and robust endpoint management. In comparison, Jamf Protect specializes in Apple device protection, standing out with seamless integration with other Jamf products. BigFix is more versatile, while Jamf Protect delivers specialized macOS protection.
Download BigFix vs. Jamf Protect Report
BigFix has lower setup costs compared to Jamf Protect, making it more budget-friendly for initial deployment. Jamf Protect, however, offers higher setup costs, which might indicate more robust initial configuration needs.
View comparison
Pricing
BigFix has lower setup costs compared to Jamf Protect, making it more budget-friendly for initial deployment. Jamf Protect, however, offers higher setup costs, which might indicate more robust initial configuration needs.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform
4.1 out of 5
ESET Endpoint Protection offers comprehensive threat detection and ease of use, suitable for diverse systems. In comparison, Jamf Protect excels in macOS integration and proactive monitoring. ESET's affordability appeals to budget-conscious buyers, while Jamf Protect attracts those needing specialized macOS security.
Download ESET Endpoint Protection Platform vs. Jamf Protect Report
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform has a lower setup cost compared to Jamf Protect, making it more budget-friendly for initial deployment. In contrast, Jamf Protect's setup cost is higher, reflecting its extensive feature set and capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
ESET Endpoint Protection Platform has a lower setup cost compared to Jamf Protect, making it more budget-friendly for initial deployment. In contrast, Jamf Protect's setup cost is higher, reflecting its extensive feature set and capabilities.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
TrendAI Vision One – Endpoint Security
4.1 out of 5
Trend Vision One Endpoint Security offers comprehensive threat protection and integration with other Trend Micro solutions. In comparison, Jamf Protect excels in real-time macOS threat detection and seamless integration within the Jamf ecosystem for Apple environments, providing tailored benefits according to user needs.
Download Jamf Protect vs. TrendAI Vision One – Endpoint Security Report
Trend Vision One Endpoint Security offers an initial setup with cost-effective options, whereas Jamf Protect’s setup may involve higher initial expenses. Budget-conscious organizations might find Trend Vision One appealing due to its relatively lower setup costs.
View comparison
Pricing
Trend Vision One Endpoint Security offers an initial setup with cost-effective options, whereas Jamf Protect’s setup may involve higher initial expenses. Budget-conscious organizations might find Trend Vision One appealing due to its relatively lower setup costs.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint
3.9 out of 5
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint provides robust threat detection and comprehensive response measures suitable for diverse IT environments. In comparison, Jamf Protect offers deep integration with Apple's ecosystem, delivering efficient malware detection and seamless experiences for macOS-focused organizations.
Download Jamf Protect vs. VMware Carbon Black Endpoint Report
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint setup costs are considered high, whereas Jamf Protect's setup costs are seen as moderate. VMware Carbon Black offers more robust features, while Jamf Protect stands out for its user-friendly interface.
View comparison
Pricing
VMware Carbon Black Endpoint setup costs are considered high, whereas Jamf Protect's setup costs are seen as moderate. VMware Carbon Black offers more robust features, while Jamf Protect stands out for its user-friendly interface.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Microsoft Defender for Business
3.9 out of 5
Microsoft Defender for Business excels in integration with Microsoft products, appealing to Windows-centric businesses. In comparison, Jamf Protect is tailored for macOS, attracting organizations focused on Apple solutions. Microsoft offers competitive pricing, while Jamf justifies costs with Apple-specific features.
Download Jamf Protect vs. Microsoft Defender for Business Report
Microsoft Defender for Business offers a cost-effective setup, while Jamf Protect may involve higher initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Defender for Business offers a cost-effective setup, while Jamf Protect may involve higher initial expenses.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Bitdefender Total Security
4.4 out of 5
Jamf Protect excels in macOS integration and straightforward deployment, appealing to Apple-centric organizations. In comparison, Bitdefender Total Security's robust cross-platform protection and comprehensive feature set offer a compelling investment for users seeking extensive security across multiple platforms. Jamf Protect's pricing and ease of deployment highlight its macOS ROI, while Bitdefender Total Security's extensive features and reliable customer service provide significant ROI across varied environments.
Download Bitdefender Total Security vs. Jamf Protect Report
Jamf Protect has a higher setup cost compared to Bitdefender Total Security. While Bitdefender Total Security offers a more budget-friendly setup, Jamf Protect provides advanced security features tailored for Apple devices, making it a premium choice.
View comparison
Pricing
Jamf Protect has a higher setup cost compared to Bitdefender Total Security. While Bitdefender Total Security offers a more budget-friendly setup, Jamf Protect provides advanced security features tailored for Apple devices, making it a premium choice.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Cisco Secure Endpoint
4.3 out of 5
Cisco Secure Endpoint excels with its broad feature set and strong deployment support. In comparison, Jamf Protect offers superior integration with Apple devices. Cisco Secure Endpoint is preferable for diverse environments, while Jamf Protect is ideal for those focused on Apple ecosystems.
Download Cisco Secure Endpoint vs. Jamf Protect Report
Cisco Secure Endpoint has a higher setup cost, while Jamf Protect offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Cisco Secure Endpoint has a higher setup cost, while Jamf Protect offers a more budget-friendly initial setup.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform
4.6 out of 5
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform offers flexible deployment options and cost-effective pricing. In comparison, Jamf Protect focuses on enhancing security for Apple environments. Tech buyers might choose ThreatLocker for its versatility and customer support, while Jamf Protect appeals for its Apple-focused security capabilities.
Download Jamf Protect vs. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform Report
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform has a straightforward setup cost, while Jamf Protect is more adaptable with varying implementation fees. The primary distinction lies in ThreatLocker’s fixed setup pricing compared to Jamf’s flexible cost structure.
View comparison
Pricing
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform has a straightforward setup cost, while Jamf Protect is more adaptable with varying implementation fees. The primary distinction lies in ThreatLocker’s fixed setup pricing compared to Jamf’s flexible cost structure.
Jamf Protect Logo
Jamf Protect Logo
Absolute Secure Endpoint
1 out of 5
Absolute Secure Endpoint provides reliable protection for business networks with advanced threat detection and response capabilities. Users appreciate its seamless integration and extensive control features. However, some mention that improvement in deployment speed and customer support could enhance the overall experience.
View comparison
Jamf Protect Logo
Nyotron PARANOID
4.3 out of 5
Jamf Protect Logo
Nyotron PARANOID
4.3 out of 5
Nyotron PARANOID offers innovative threat detection and prevention at a cost-effective rate with robust customer service. In comparison, Jamf Protect provides superior macOS management and security features. Nyotron excels in deployment ease, while Jamf Protect justifies its higher price with enhanced macOS support.
Download Jamf Protect vs. Nyotron PARANOID Report
Nyotron PARANOID's setup costs are generally higher than Jamf Protect's, making Jamf Protect a more cost-effective option.
View comparison
Pricing
Nyotron PARANOID's setup costs are generally higher than Jamf Protect's, making Jamf Protect a more cost-effective option.

Related categories

Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
AI Customer Experience Personalization
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)