We performed a comparison between Deep Instinct Prevention Platform and ThreatLocker Protect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"The stability is very good."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Additionally, when it comes to EDR, there are more tools available to assist with client work."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"The price is low and quite competitive with others."
"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’s prevention-first approach to stopping unknown ransomware and malware is the reason why we purchased the product. The pre-execution versus post-execution is a big piece for us where it is able to stop something before it even hits the box or desktop. That was one of the big reasons why we went with Deep Instinct."
"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 most important thing is that it is for prevention. It prevents attacks of any type of malware. Normally, what we've seen in other products is that they are not for prevention. They isolate a possible threat that they don't understand or know about, and then they check it with our database to see if it needs any correction or elimination. This means that the threat is already inside a customer's base, whereas Deep Instinct prevents a threat from getting in. Prevention is basically done by an agent in each installation, PCU, or product. An agent has its own intelligence to be able to detect if it should stop a threat or not. It has been taught. It is like a brain that has been taught to react according to any possible threat. Deep Instinct is very light. It doesn't take too much CPU attention or memory. It doesn't slow down the performance. You don't really realize any change in the performance, which makes it very different from other solutions. They are usually heavy for the users."
"It has given us a more structured approach for detecting and preventing threats. It has machine learning-based detection and prevention. Their engines, in even older versions, are able to pick these viruses and malware. They have posted a lot of use cases online for detecting different viruses and malware that have been out for many years."
"Deep Instinct was a strategic complement to our Open XDR platform."
"Good detections for PowerShell. and good user interface."
"Its false positives are very low, because the behavior analysis engine double checks them."
"Every single feature has been invaluable."
"Feature-wise, the learning mode and the fact that it's blocking everything are the most valuable. I don't see why more companies don't use the type of product."
"Application control, ring-fencing, and storage control are the most important features, followed closely by elevation."
"The most valuable feature is probably the ability to block programs from running. ThreatLocker has some built-in features that make it super easy. You can also contact their support within the program. If you're having issues, you can click on that button and connect with someone in five to 10 seconds."
"The biggest improvement has been knowing that something unauthorized isn't going to get installed on anyone’s machines."
"While it can be frustrating at times, we appreciate the low-level security provided by the application whitelist."
"The interface is clean and well-organized, making it simple to navigate and find what we need."
"The sandbox functionality is fantastic."
"I haven't seen the use of AI in the solution."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Making the portal mobile friendly would be helpful when I am out of office."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"It would be nice if there were options where, if I have to do SIEM integration, I could do so from the UI: Just pick and choose what SIEM solutions the customers use and have options to have out-of-the-box connection facility."
"Some features are too resource intensive."
"Due to the nature of deep learning, it’s sometimes difficult to determine why the AI model has blocked a specific file, although this has improved over time."
"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."
"The Management Console is not localized."
"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."
"They have a manual, but it is not excessive."
"If the client is working remotely and doesn't have a VPN then the deployment is difficult to do."
"More visibility in the built-ins would be nice."
"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."
"From a reporting perspective, enhancing the ability to customize reports would be beneficial."
"The snapshots used in the ThreatLocker University portal are outdated snippets and have not been updated in conjunction with the portal itself."
"Something we have come up against a couple of times is that we have two clients that are software developers. They create software that doesn't have digital signatures and that's not easy to categorize or whitelist with ThreatLocker. We have to go in and make custom rules to allow them to do their work and to be protected from malicious threats."
"The reporting could be improved."
"Adding applications to the allowlist can sometimes feel overwhelming."
"The portal can be a little overwhelming at times from an administration point of view. It displays a lot of information, and it's all useful. However, sometimes there is too much on the screen to sift through, especially if you're trying to diagnose a client's problem with a piece of software. Maybe something has stopped working since they updated it, and we need to see if ThreatLocker is blocking a component of that software."
More Deep Instinct Prevention Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is ranked 25th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 18 reviews while ThreatLocker Protect is ranked 26th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 13 reviews. Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is rated 8.6, while ThreatLocker Protect is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform writes "Bolsters prevention with great detection and response capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatLocker Protect writes "Integration is simple, deployment is straightforward, and extensive well-written documentation is available online". Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CylancePROTECT and Intercept X Endpoint, whereas ThreatLocker Protect is most compared with SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress and Total Defense Anti-Virus. See our Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. ThreatLocker Protect report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
