Comparison
ShadowLock vs ThreatLocker for shadow AI
ThreatLocker blocks the AI tool at the door. ShadowLock inspects what employees actually send to the ones you allow — and scans your M365 tenant for AI OAuth grants ThreatLocker doesn\'t see. The two layer cleanly; once your AI policy moves past “block everything,” you need both.
The wedge
ThreatLocker's CEO Danny Jenkins has been explicit: ThreatLocker's AI posture is default-deny application control, not content inspection. If your only question is “is the AI tool installed?”, ThreatLocker is the answer. If your question is “what data is leaving when we do allow AI?”, only an endpoint clipboard classifier — like ShadowLock — can tell you.
Side by side
| Dimension | ShadowLock | ThreatLocker |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt-data inspection | Yes — Shannon entropy + Luhn + tiered confidence at paste time. | No — explicitly out of scope per the company's public posture. |
| M365 tenant / Copilot OAuth | Microsoft Graph integration enumerates AI OAuth grants and Copilot plugins; alerts on new consent; can revoke at the tenant. | No M365 Graph integration for shadow AI detection. |
| AI app + web blocking | NTFS ACLs on AI desktop apps + managed extension on AI URLs. | Default-deny allowlisting + Web Control category-blocking (Web Control beta at launch). |
| Scope | Focused shadow AI control across endpoint, browser, and M365 tenant. | Broad zero-trust endpoint platform: allowlisting, Ringfencing, Storage, Elevation, Web, Cloud Control. |
| Pricing | Public $0.80–$1.00/device/month. | Channel-only, quote-based, bundled with the platform. |
“Doesn't ThreatLocker already do this?”
It blocks access — and that's a real, valuable control. Default-deny stops the ChatGPT desktop app from installing; Web Control category-blocks AI domains. For shops whose AI policy is "no AI, ever," that combination handles most of the access vector.
What it does not do is read the prompt. If an approved browser, an approved user, and an approved tool are all in play and that user pastes PHI into ChatGPT, ThreatLocker sees normal allowed behavior. ShadowLock's clipboard monitor reads the content, classifies it locally, and blocks or audits per policy. That gap closes the moment your governance team says "we'll allow AI for some workflows."
Which one fits your situation?
Choose ShadowLock when…
- ✓You already run ThreatLocker (or any zero-trust posture) and need to add prompt-data classification.
- ✓Your shadow AI policy is "allow some AI, block sensitive pastes" — not just "block all AI."
- ✓You need clipboard-level inspection for HIPAA §164.312, SOC 2 CC6/CC7, or GDPR Article 32.
- ✓You want a focused control with transparent per-device pricing, not a platform bundle.
ThreatLocker still fits if…
- •You're replacing your whole endpoint stack with a zero-trust posture and want a single vendor.
- •Your shadow AI threat model genuinely is "no AI tools, ever" and Web Control + allowlisting satisfies it.
Frequently asked questions
Can ShadowLock and ThreatLocker run on the same endpoint?+
Yes — they don't conflict and most mid- to large-MSP shops run both. ThreatLocker handles access; ShadowLock handles paste-time content classification.
Does ThreatLocker classify AI prompt content?+
No. ThreatLocker's public AI posture is default-deny application and web control, not content inspection. ShadowLock is the layer that reads what's in the paste.
Will my MSP buyers ask about this comparison?+
Constantly. "Doesn't ThreatLocker already block AI?" is the most common objection in shadow AI deals. Answer: it blocks access, ShadowLock inspects content — different jobs.
Compare ShadowLock to other shadow AI tools
Researching alternatives? Honest side-by-side comparisons against every MSP-channel shadow AI tool.