ThreatDown vs SentinelOne: Pricing, Detection Rates & Which Wins in 2026

ThreatDown vs SentinelOne at a Glance

Both are endpoint protection platforms built around AI/ML-driven detection, but they come from very different starting points. SentinelOne (Singularity) is a publicly traded platform vendor (NYSE: S) that grew up chasing mid-market and enterprise SOC teams. ThreatDown is Malwarebytes' business line, rebranded in 2023 to sell the same detection engine Malwarebytes has run on consumer machines for two decades, packaged for IT teams without a dedicated security operations function.

Neither platform is objectively "better" in the abstract — the right pick depends on endpoint count, whether you have anyone to triage alerts, and how many attack surfaces beyond the endpoint you actually need covered. The sections below work through pricing, detection data, and buyer fit in detail.

ThreatDown vs SentinelOne Pricing

This is the single biggest practical difference between the two vendors: ThreatDown publishes its price list, SentinelOne does not.

ThreatDown's published bundles

ThreatDown sells four annual bundles, priced per endpoint with a 5-endpoint minimum:

Server protection and mobile security are separate add-ons: server coverage runs roughly $129–$179 per year depending on tier, and mobile is a flat $10 per device regardless of tier. A two-year commitment gets a 10% discount.

SentinelOne: no public list price

SentinelOne does not publish a price list on its own site; every deal runs through sales or a reseller, which is normal for platform vendors selling into mid-market and enterprise accounts but makes apples-to-apples budgeting harder. Publicly reported figures from MSPs and pricing-research sites cluster in the following bands, but treat them as indicative rather than a quote:

The practical read: at the entry tiers the two are close, but SentinelOne's higher tiers (and the separately billed Vigilance MDR) push its street price well above ThreatDown's published Ultimate bundle once you actually want managed response.

Detection Rates: What the MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations Show

Vendor claims about "detection rate" are close to meaningless without a shared test, which is why the MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations matter: MITRE runs the same simulated attack, unmodified, against every participating vendor's default configuration, and publishes step-by-step results without ranking them.

In the 2024 Enterprise round (Round 6, 19 vendors, 16 attack steps and 80 sub-steps across Windows, Linux, and macOS ransomware and DPRK-style scenarios):

• SentinelOne reported 100% detection across all 80 sub-steps with zero detection delays, and generated 88% fewer alerts than the median vendor in the evaluation.
• ThreatDown raised at least one valid alert on every step of the attack chain out of the box, and did so with 504 total alerts versus an average of over 60,520 alerts across the 19 participating vendors.

Both numbers are real, and both are telling you something slightly different. "100% step detection" measures whether the tool noticed the attack at all; alert volume measures whether an analyst could actually work through what it noticed without drowning in noise. A platform that detects everything but buries it under tens of thousands of alerts is not meaningfully more protective for a two-person IT team than one with a smaller but well-tuned catch rate. MITRE itself is explicit that these evaluations are not a ranking — read the step-level detail for the categories that match your own attack surface (Windows/Linux ransomware vs. macOS/DPRK-style intrusion) rather than the single headline percentage either vendor puts in a press release.

Total Cost of Ownership for a 50-Endpoint Deployment

List price is only the starting line. For a 50-endpoint SMB deployment, here's how the published and reported numbers translate into an annual budget line, plus what tends to get missed.

Two things that don't show up in either license line but move the real cost: agent management overhead (a platform with a heavier default footprint costs staff time even when the license is cheap, and complaints about resource use and manual tuning show up in independent reviews of both products, not just one) and whether your team can actually staff triage. If you're buying EDR alerts nobody has time to investigate, the cheaper tier that bundles managed response — ThreatDown's Elite, or SentinelOne with Vigilance added — is usually the lower true cost even though the sticker price is higher.

ThreatDown vs SentinelOne for Small Business

For a shop under roughly 100 endpoints with no dedicated security analyst, ThreatDown is generally the more straightforward fit: pricing is published and predictable down to a 5-endpoint minimum, the OneView console is built around a single site or a handful of sites rather than enterprise-scale fleet management, and Managed Detection & Response is a tier upgrade rather than a second procurement conversation. G2 reviewers specifically flag ThreatDown's ease of setup and administration as a differentiator for teams without in-house security staff.

SentinelOne's Singularity platform is not a bad product for a small business — the MITRE results above are real — but its base packaging (cloud workload and identity protection bundled into higher tiers, a sales-quote pricing model) is built for organizations that expect to grow into those attack surfaces. A 15-person company buying only endpoint coverage is often paying for platform breadth it won't use for years, and has to go through a quote process to find out what that costs.

ThreatDown vs SentinelOne for MSPs

Both vendors have real MSP programs, but they solve different problems for a managed services business.

ThreatDown leans into multi-tenant simplicity. G2 reviewers who manage several client environments consistently call out the OneView dashboard as the standout feature specifically because it makes it easy to spot which client endpoints need attention across sites without switching consoles, and because Managed Detection & Response is bundled rather than a separate line item to sell each client on.

SentinelOne is the stronger pick for an MSP that's building a broader security practice rather than reselling antivirus — its base pricing already covers three attack surfaces (endpoint, cloud, identity), which matters if you're pitching clients on cloud workload or identity threat detection as a service. The tradeoff is that Vigilance MDR is a separate purchase per client rather than a tier upgrade, which changes how you have to price your own managed offering on top of it.

If your MSP's book is mostly SMB clients who need "good antivirus plus someone watching it," ThreatDown's bundled model is simpler to resell. If you're selling a broader XDR/cloud-security practice to larger clients, SentinelOne's wider attack-surface coverage is the better platform to build on, even with the extra procurement step for MDR.

So, Which Is Better?

There's no single winner here — the two products are aimed at different points on the same market, and the review data reflects that split. On Gartner Peer Insights, SentinelOne holds a slightly higher average rating (4.7 vs. 4.6) but is reviewed disproportionately by larger organizations; on G2, ThreatDown reviewers report higher overall satisfaction, concentrated among SMB and MSP users managing multiple sites. Neither score settles the question on its own.

Whichever you shortlist, pull the current-round MITRE ATT&CK results for the scenario closest to your own risk (ransomware vs. identity-focused attacks) before signing, since evaluation rounds and vendor participation change year to year.

Endpoint protection is one piece of a business's overall online risk surface; if you're also weighing how discoverable and trustworthy your company looks to customers and AI search engines, Netalith covers that side of the picture.