We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Office 365 and Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, ESET and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)."There are several features that I consider valuable."
"Our customers are satisfied with Defender for 365 because Microsoft products are easy to use and customize to meet the client's needs. Everything is in one place, so we can adjust policies as needed for phishing, DLP, ATP, or any other security features that our clients want to apply."
"The initial setup was easy."
"The deployment capability is a great feature."
"Defender for Office 365 has helped eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards and that is the aspect I like most about it. It is simpler, effective, and convenient. The users like the process efficiency."
"The risk level notifications are most valuable. We get to know what kind of intrusion or attack is there, and we can fix a problem on time."
"The technical support is good and quick to resolve issues."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is the ease of use."
"It has a dynamic runtime engine, which gives it an advantage over Prisma that has a static engine. In Prisma, we have to do additional malware analysis, which is not required in Proofpoint."
"The only thing they should improve is the licensing model. They should stop changing it. A year ago, the five features I mentioned were included in one product. Now, three of them are bundled into one product, and you have to pay extra for the other two. I don't mind paying extra, but I don't want them to change it every year or every six months. I need to know what I'm looking at and not worry about it next year."
"Too many false positives and lacks an accurate capability to detect malicious SharePoint sites."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 should be more proactive."
"The GUI is sometimes slow to fetch the device report and could be improved."
"It would be better if it were more scalable. It depends on the architecture, but we would like to make it more scalable for both data centers."
"The company should focus on adding threats that the solution is currently unable to detect."
"The phishing and spam filters could use some improvement."
"We are always looking for others tools to increase automation on tasks. There can be better integration with other solutions, such as PowerPoint and email."
"We are using the TRAP console that has a Linux-based UI, which is not user-friendly. The TAP console looks very advanced. Currently, we are maintaining three different consoles, and it is sometimes hard to switch between them or try to grab the data."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is ranked 1st in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 41 reviews while Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection is ranked 23rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is rated 8.4, while Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Office 365 writes "Allows for easy reporting of problems, valuable anti-phishing, and anti-malware support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection writes "Dynamic runtime engine and good protection, but needs better support and a single console". Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is most compared with Proofpoint Email Protection, Mimecast Email Security, Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Cisco Secure Email and Barracuda Email Security Gateway, whereas Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection is most compared with Avanan, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Microsoft Defender for Identity and IRONSCALES.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.